Talk:Castelseprio (archaeological park)

Edit War poll

PLEASE NOTE: User:Dahn keeps reverting the article, so the current version is the one Attilios prefers, not the one I prefer. Please bear this in mind when reading comments below by myself, Attilios and others, which refer to the other way round! MY PREFERRED VERSION MAY BE SEEN HERE[1] Johnbod 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• There's an edit war ongoing between me and Johnbod. He's continuously reverting my attempt to move the article to a more standard form, similar to those regarding all other Italian communes here. My version can be found [2] here. The current version (by Johnbod) features a giant, unpleasant image of the frescoes (which, according to him, are the only reason why Castelseprio has an article here), put on the left. According to me, such a layout would look ridiculous to any encyclopedia (it is as if you start the article of San Gimignano only referring to its towers). Also, Castelseprio is not tchnically a village, but a comune (but of course Johnbod didn't stop even a second to consider the thing, I think he didn't even checked other Italian communes to see the layout there as I tried to ask him). Therefore, I start a poll here to gain consensus a bout which version use, hoping to stop the edit war.

Would you prefer to revert to a version in which a more standard layout of the article is given (say, version [3]). Attilios 09:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support - --Attilios 09:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Definitely, and I endorse Attilos' version, for many, many, common sense reasons. Dahn 09:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - agree with Dahn - 52 Pickup 09:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - the art should have its own article (suggest Castelseprio (frescoes)) with a short summary here and a Main article link. It makes article organization with Categories more logical, the lead section more logical, resolves disputes, and the frescoe section is developed enough to have its own article as part of the Medieval art series. -- Stbalbach 12:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Alternative - can this entry be split into one for the town that has the dry facts plus

then refers to the main entry for the Frescoes - say like an entry for Assisi and a separate one for the churches and their fresco series. On a brief glance, I thought you both were not so far apart in what you wanted to convey. -by CARAVAGGISTI just now

• Disagree - Contrary to what Attilios says, I am well aware of the "standard" commune format. Standardization in itself should not be an aim of the the encyclopedia. In this particular case the commune is a village with a population of 1,276 people - it must be one of the smallest in Italy. The article as I found it was bot-generated, with no reference whatsoever to the frescoes. I could have course have started a separate article, but given how little was in the village article this seemed needless duplication. The "village" article would clearly always remain a very poor stub. If the articles are to be split - which I would prefer to Attilios's version - then clearly the fresoes and related buildings in the archaeological zone should have "Castelseprio" and the village "Castelseprio (commune)" or something. But this still seems unnecessary to me. All the "what links here" items relate to the frescoes, not the village, except for other links with other bot-generated articles on neighbouring communes. The frescoes have international significance, the village does not. Attilios finds the frescoes "unpleasant". Well art historians do not agree! He seems to ignore that the "combined" article comes under art categories, so the design should reflect the more significant part of the entry. There are only two photos, and because of the worn condition of the frescoes, it is necessary to have them large for them to be seen well. I might add that Attilios changed completely the design of the page, whilst it was a DYK item on the main page, and without any note here or on my talk page. Johnbod 14:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is nothing rational to justify discarding the format for the "smallest commune", if Castelseprio is indeed that (for one, we would consequently drop it for the next to smallest, then for the next to next to smallest etc.). Attilios never said that the frescoes were "unpleasant", but that having carpet-sized pictures of them is unpleasant. And may I add, it is also absurd (large-sized pictures are one click away - follow the thumb). There is no problem if the combined article is included in art categories: one would have to ask himself if the frescoes need a separate article, and the solution is for the commune to be the main link (per Stbalbach); in that instance, simply move cats to there; if not, the supposed dichotomy eludes me. Dahn 15:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Stbalbach that there is a need to "disambiguate" here. The church should have its own entry under, z.B., Santa Maria foris portas (Castelseprio), which should be prominently linked from the Castelseprio page proper. Sta. Maria is certainly the major reason for the "notability" of the commune, but it really requires its own entry, as with any other monument. (Likewise tourists rarely go to Poreč unless they want to see the Euphrasian Basilica.) It would be possible to beef up the Castelseprio article with a history section and brief descriptions of the monuments, including but not limited to Sta. Maria -- this simply by pillaging the commune's website, a task with which I would be glad to help.--Javits2000 15:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Ok I think we all agree that disambiguation is needed, and I think Javits2000's idea that the Church should be the article, as a monument, makes some sense. The problem as Johnbod pointed out is that when people say "Castelseprio" they almost always mean the Frescoes, and not the church or the town. According to the general guidelines on article naming we should use the name that most people would expect to find when doing a search. Of course, this can all be resolved easily enough with top-hats disambig notices. Another idea is have "Castelseprio" be a redirect, with both articles having disambiguated names, and a message that says "Castelseprio redirects here. For the commune see .." -- Stbalbach 16:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I think a disambiguation page is an unnecessary complication, with only two alternatives. As Stalbach says, "when people say "Castelseprio" they almost always mean the Frescoes, and not the church or the town", so it is clear to me under WP policies that searching on "Castelsprio" should take people to the frescoes and other contents of the archaeological zone, with of course a link to the village. Because the village is small many references in books etc just say "the Castelseprio frecoes" or "at Castelsprio" without further indication of the church etc. "Guernica" is an analagous example, though that has a disam page with several links. I don't personally think that the articles need to be split, but that seems to be the way it is going. I don't know if Javits200o saw that there is already a "history section and brief descriptions of the monuments", which I did indeed pillage from the web-site. This could be expanded somewhat, but not enormously from there. Johnbod 16:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I prefer a separate entry on the church out of a certain purism; good academic practice would always be to refer to the church in full. Even if the frescoes are more notable than the architecture, it's in the nature of the medium that the two cannot be detached from each other, barring the intervention of rapacious American curators. And neither is identical with the town. The only other Wiki that appears to have dealth with both frescoes & commune is the Italian (Castelseprio & Maestro di Castelseprio); in general that's the type of arrangement I'ld prefer. It's true that art historians will refer to the paintings in shorthand simply as "Castelseprio," although hopefully not in print. At the same time, if I say "Aachen" I mean the chapel, and if I say "Chartres" I mean the cathedral; which is no reason not to distinguish between building & town in an encyclopedia.

In any case, and however it's filed, the entry on the frescoes is immensely useful; kudos. --Javits2000 17:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Two articles: I also strongly support splitting the article. This not only is the "right" thing to do, but it also diffuses this disagreement. The important information within the current article is on the frescoes and I have no problem with Castelseprio pointing to the church/fresco page. My thoughts, MapMaster 18:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Support - standardization is good, and anyway one need only scroll down to see the frescoes. Biruitorul 19:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - the standard version is much better. Turgidson 22:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Per ab. Tazmaniacs 19:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• I seem that large agreement has been gained about (exactly as I guessed, being it clearly more reasonable) staying on my version. This is a common practice in Wikipedia. You cannot blame Danh if he reverts YOUR reverts: he's simply following Wikipedia rules. Good work. --Attilios 20:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

G'Day!!

Just dropped by to add my two-pennyworth.... and I hope it makes everyone happy!

I have tried to balance the information concerning the relative insignificance of this place with its artistic significance.....

I have also tried my best to adjust the descriptions of the layout of the individual works. It is clear that the description which presumed that some pictures were missing from the other side of the "throne" was wrong. Because none of the major pictures in the cycle is missing, only one small one- the dream of the Magi. From my reading of an article in Italian (which I don't do very well) the Adoration of the Magi is on a face of the arch. On the other face of the arch one would probably find the Magi asleep in a row with an angel swooping down to warn them not to go back to Herod. I've left out bits of the description that said something like "there is nothing over the window" (or whatever it was) That may have been significant in an architectural report but not here.

Ciao!

--Amandajm 08:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is at all "clear that the description" is wrong; there are bits of what would no doubt have been the Dream of the Magi, but nothing remains on the whole other side of the church. That is why there are the arguments about whether a Life of Christ or a Life of the Virgin was intended - at that point in the story it could arguably go either way. Plus the first two scenes in the middle register are missing except for fragments. You really need to see the drawing of the whole wall from Bognetti et al 1948 (also in Schapiro), or a similar one. Johnbod 02:39, 30 January 2007 (UT

Re description

Sorry! I was entirely wrong in saying that none of the major pictures were missing:- the two pictures missing from the story are the "Massacre of the Innocents" and the "Flight into Egypt" both of which are generally included in any cycle that introduces the Magi.

The thing that's confusing is the reference to the throne, which can mean two things.

• There's a throne of God painted on the arch. From my reading, it's located on the main arch of the sanctuary.
• There also may be, or have been, a real throne against the wall, or in a separate exedra (small niche) in the back wall of the apse.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "the other side" of the church. This is the apse, rather than one of the sides. Or have I got that 100% wrong?

The description of what is contained in the apse seems clear to me, having just reread it. The fact that we don't know what was in the rest of the church is immaterial. This part of the story is complete in itself, except for those two predictable scenes.

It's the Nativity from Matthew and Luke's Gospels, augmented with details from two Apocryphal Gospels. The missing scenes in the middle register are the last two scenes, not the first two. It's common for frescoes of this date to run left-right, right-left, which is what happens here. It is not at all hard to speculate as to what the missing scenes are. The two major scenes in the middle section are the Massacre of the Innocents and the Flight into Egypt. The small scene opposite the Adoration of the Magi on the side of the arch would be another Magi-related scene: either Herod on his throne talking to them or the three Magi asleep and an angel warning them. It's impossible to say which without seeing the remains. One thing is for sure, there was no Life of Christ or an extensive Life of the Virgin on the walls of the apse. If the entire church was painted, the sort of scheme one would expect to find in the church proper would be a "Last Judgement" above the western entrance, and either a Life of Christ taking up both walls or a Passion of Christ (rather than the whole Life, because its a small building) ocupying one wall and on the other, Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark etc. Or possibly a Life of Mary. But not very likely, because the Veneration of Mary to the extent that the Cycle of her Life would be presented rather than the Passion of Christ didn't happen until the 11th century and (presuming that there actually were more frescoes) they may well have been 8th-10th century.

However, it seems pointless to argue about it. The church is dedicate to Mary so it may well have been the life of the BMV.

I'm putting up a diagram of my reading of the Apse layout. The last two scenes, which are simultaneous, can occur in either order, but often the massacre is depicted before the Flight into Egypt, although, in this instance, there's a good case for putting the Flight under Joseph's dream, since he also had a dream warning him to leave Bethlehem. --Amandajm 15:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the drawing is just all wrong - for a start it shows 5 registers not 3! As I said above, with the Bognetti drawing (or strictly, scaled plan) all is clear. Without it, evidently not. I will rejig, but my version before you started changing it is much more accurate. Clearly I need to expand on the overall plan of the church. Johnbod 18:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I should have said the Bognetti drawing (his TAV XC) makes elevation issues clear, but there are aspects of the plan I'm not clear about, notably the return angle to the main arch. If anyone has access to Bognetti or Weitzmann, it would be very useful to have this confirmed. I did originally think, like Amanda, that the Hetoimasia faced east, over an arch to an "inner apse" (of which Schapiro speaks). But it now seems clear that it faces west, above an arch back to the main church. Hence I thought the drawing showed a bit over 90 degrees of plan, rather than 360 degrees. So I now agree there is no missing other side. There is definitely no exhedra, as on her drawing - the largest remaining bit of the lowest register is directly under the central (back) window & the Pantocrater. Also unfortunately, the scale on the Bognetti drawing in Schapiro is printed too small to read, but presumably shows 10cm divisions up to 1 metre. In this case the height of the frescoed scenes is roughly 1.5 m for the top register, and slightly less for the middle register - which looks about right from exterior photos of the church.

The drawing shows a different (?) face on the left of the arch, beginning just left of the eye of Mary's donkey in h) and ending through the tree to the left of the adoring Magi. Looking at the photos these angles do not appear to be sharp. No equivalent is shown on the other side of the arch. But really I think we have enough detail for the purposes of the article, assuming it is now accurate, and clear to others. Johnbod 22:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Not logical

Johnbod, I have just reread every detal of the description. There is nothing unusual about the layout.

I find it rather surprising that you are having difficulty with the diagram, that is, if you understand the construction of an apsed church and about Byzantine decorated interiors. This diagram does not represent 5 registers.

From top to bottom it shows:-

• The Arch that separates the apse from the church. Three of the pictures are on the "inner" wall of the arch: The throne of God, the Magi and the (?)Dream of the Magi (uncertainty as to what the writer meant by "inner"!)

• Inside that is the semi-dome of the apse. It must have one. The rondels (usually spelt without a "u") would probably all be on the semi-dome. Mary and John the Baptist may be lower, but Christ Pantocrator is almost certainly on the dome itself, because Christ Pantocrator is almost never anywhere else.

NO, This is wrong.... Just took a look at some exterior pics and the roof is too flat.... which would put Jesus above the window and just below the roofline. --Amandajm 00:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

correct Johnbod 00:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Three "registers" of mural decoration, two being narrative and the third being curtains. The lowest register of a scheme like this is nearly always either faux marble or painted curtains.

Problems with Bognetti's description (if your transcription is right):-

• It doesn't accurately locate the Christ Pantocrator. It includes it, and the other rondels, in a continuous "round the wall" description, which is illogical and does not respect the artistic/spiritual significance of the identity of those in the rondels:- Christ centrally placed, with Mary and John the Baptist on either side. ( By "central" this means "central to the entire pictorial scheme", not just simply in the "middle". It's a visual and ideological location rather than a measured distance.)

• It fails to recognise the continuity of the narrative which is between the windows by breaking it with descriptions of what is above the windows.

• It wrecks the narrative sequence by maintaining a stupidly modern left-right description when the narrative itself reads left-right, then right-left, as is common in Medieval narrative art. See the rear panels of Duccio's Maesta, for example.

The letters that Bognetti stuck on the things are of no significance whatsoever, given that the description itself is so very inadequate. One would think that Bognetti had never seen a Byzantine narrative cycle in his life.

What we need here is the best and most logical description we can come up with, which is why I have been requested to buy into it.

The way that it was written and that you have rewritten it now means that anyone who reads it has to actually decipher what the scheme is, rather than having it clearly and logically presented.

Your insistence on having the narratives presented in the wrong order because of Bognetti's stupid lettering system is simply muddling something which is really quite straight forward. It initially confused me, it obviously confuses you, and it will also confuse other readers.

As for the exedra, the website says that at the centre of the lowest stage was an exedra which would probably have contained a depiction of the Gospels resting on a cushion. I take this to be a painted rather than architectural feature.

--Amandajm 23:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know what to say; apparently Bognetti, who unlike you & me has actually been there (indeed is still there - buried in the church) got it all wrong, as apparently did the artists. Do you know how many Byzantine fresco cycles actually exist from before, during and for 500 years after this one? Not nearly enough to generalize about. I imagine the apse has a ceiling really too flat to be called a semi-dome (it appears to be similar to the west sorry south side-chapel/bit in the photos), but it is not decorated (as part of this scheme anyway). The building is certainly not Byzantine in style. I will add a note on the flow of the narrative certainly, and change middle to central, but most of your comment above is original research, and clearly wrong to my mind. The gospel book on a cushion (or something circular - it looks like a lazy-Susan) still survives, and I can add that in. Where are you now locating the Pantocrater relative to the Hetoimasia?

Nobody asked you to "buy in" re the description; you were asked in to support the tiny-picture agenda, which you very commendably failed to do! I will ask Javits if he can very kindly look at a big fat book & check matters out. Johnbod 00:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Bad description

What do you mean, where am I locating the Pantocrator? It's obviously above the window that is central to the apse. If there is no dome, and having found good external views, it has become fairly clear to me that there isn't, then the Pantocrator is above the central window, lower than the roof line, rather than above it.

The description of the "Hetoimasia" (to use a word few readers understand) is apparently on the arch between the church and the apse, but the description says "inner face" which could mean inner to the body of the church, inner to the apse or inner meaning the surface of the arch itself. It's common for Byzantine arches to have significant motifs decorating them, sometimes rondels of the apostles.

As for the number of Byzantine fresco cycles, No, there are not a lot of early fresco cycles but there exist quite a number of relatively intact pictorial cycles in the form of mosaics. They exist from 6th century onwards and include the 9th century mosaics at Santa Prassede in Rome, for example. Regardless of whether the pictorial decoration is painted or mosaic, the schemes show a fair consistency. The motif of the Virgin swathed in the multi-folded robe lying in the particular position shown in these frescoes, for example, is reproduced with more or less skill in countless representations of the Nativity in fresco, mosaic, ivory, manuscript and painted icon. The consistency in many elements is not restricted to a particular medium and has continued in the Orthodox Church unabated to the present day. A significant element of difference is the degree to which artists include non-canonical narratives.

Quote: "got it all wrong, as apparently did the artists." I don't know what you mean by this. Where Bognetti is buried says nothing about his powers of description. What he has done is organise his description into a formula which is not appropriate to the artwork that he s describing. Describing a fresco cycle with the scenes running chronologically the wrong way is not a good description. The early painters had no law to say that you should read pictures from left to right. In practice, picture cycles often read in a zig-zag manner, or sometimes beginning at the door on both sides so that the left side of the building reads left to right, and the right side reads right to left.

I am not saying that Bognetti described it "wrongly". I am saying that he described it "badly" which is an entirely different matter. That's the problem.

--Amandajm 02:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Latest version of the plan

I think that this is getting closer. The proportions are undoubtedly incorrect. --Amandajm 03:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Check fact

The website says that John the Baptist is on the left between the Annunciation/Visitation and Trial. Your description puts him on the right. One of them is wrong. I would think it is the website, because the BMV should be on Christ's right hand, not to his left. That would put John on the observer's right, when facing and Mary on the left (as per Last Judgement Sistine Chapel etc). --Amandajm 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: This is for discussion only; it may be "somewhat" inaccurate!

Neither roundel (not rondel, a type of French poem) survives, except for a bit of one border; I put Mary on the right hand purely on an assumption that that is where she would be. The plan looks unchanged to me. I'm not going to point out every mistake, but if you read my description you will see you have the windows a register too high; their bottoms are level with the bottom of the middle register scenes. But really all this is rather pointless - you are just making inappropriate assumptions. Have you factored the destroyed Vatican Byzantine frescoes into your thinking? They actually seem to be the closest to here in many ways. Oratory of Pope John VII -a reasonable C17 drawing survives. Johnbod 04:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes the diagram has considerably changed. Johnbod, I have to ask you? Have you read what it says beneath it? It says "for discussion", OK? That means I am quite happy to have you correct me over it as much as you like! What you don't seem to realise is that you are dealing with a person who values both accuracy and clarity. In other words, I would much rather be right than wrong. Being right means being truly right. So let's get it sorted out. But dealing with Bognetti's confusing description would set anybody wrong!--Amandajm 05:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Revised drawing OK, here's version number four! --Amandajm 05:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello all -- I haven't followed the whole conversation, but as I noted on Johnbod's talk page, I've ordered copies of Weitzmann and Bognetti, which should be here next week, and may clear up some of these questions. In the meantime, if either of you have access to JSTOR or to print copies of the Art Bulletin, you may find this of use: P.D. Leveto, "The Marian theme of the frescoes in S. Maria at Castelseprio," Art Bulletin 72 (1990), 393-413. I have to run & so can't check it against the queries above, but there appear to be a number of diagrams & photos therein, as well as a fairly lucid description of the program. More later, --Javits2000 11:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is what I gather from the Leveto article, which includes reproductions of the figures from Weitzmann. I'll compare these to the diagram currently uploaded and reproduced above.

Beginning with the uppermost register. The annunciation & visitation are placed correctly. The roundel to the right is not preserved at all; "John" should be at least qualified with a question mark. The trial by water is placed correctly, as is the Christ pantocrator, and the dream of Joseph. The roundel to the right of this is, again, not preserved, and should be qualified. The journey to Bethlehem is correctly placed.

Next to the regsiter beneath. Only traces of the first two scenes are preserved, and there is some dispute as to their correct identification; the point of Leveto's article is, in fact, to challenge the previous interpretations. In Weitzmann's diagrams these are labelled simply as "Scene B" and "Scene C." According to Leveto's interpretation they represented the birth of the Virgin and the presentation of the Virgin at the temple (i.e. elements of the Marian cycle as related in the apocryphal gospels, as also, for example, in the Kariye Camii & Arena Chapel). The Presentation & Nativity are correctly placed.

The lowermost register is correctly labelled.

Finally to the remaining scenes. These are on the inner face of the arch that separates apse from aisle; i.e. if we were standing within the apse, we would see them decorating the surface of the arch. The uppermost register, which corresponds to the uppermost register of the apse frescoes themselves, displays the heitomasia at the center, i.e. at the apex of the arch; it is flanked by an angel on either side (i.e. in the spandrels). The register beneath, which is again contiguous with the middle register of the apse mosaics, displays, facing the arch, to the left, the adoration of the Magi; and to the right, a scene of which only traces remain ("Scene A," to follow Weitzmann; the rejection of Joachim's offerings, another standard Marian scene, to follow Leveto).

I hope this is of some help; I'ld be happy to email a PDF of Leveto to anyone who is interested. I'm also hoping to be in Milan within the next couple of months, and if I make it to Castelseprio I'll be sure to post lots of pics to Wikimedia. Best, --Javits2000 16:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks - that was as I expected regarding the arch, although I'm still not quite clear what happens at the returns to the arch wall, but it is easily sufficiently detailed for the purposes of this article, so don't worry about that. Enjoy it if you go - I doubt they'll let use use flash somehow, but shots would be great. I've updated the article for this & abandoned the Bognetti letters for numbers. Thanks again Johnbod 20:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Leveto

Thanks for the info, Javits! I like Leveto's proposed arrangement. It has an enjoyable balance about it. The problem with it is, if these frescoes are as early as they appear to be, then one would not expect the Marian scenes to take priority over "Christ related" scenes at a date in the 9th or even the 10th centuries. The two examples that you have given are early 14th century, which is a different matter. In fact, if these frescoes were 14th century, one would find a far greater number of stylistic parallels.

Johnbod, I'm relieved that you have abandoned Bognetti's tiresome letters. Now, I have abandoned a few of your detailed descriptions of location. I realise that you wrote the in the interest of making everything perfectly clear, but they didn't. The Eastern apse cannot be described as right at the back of the church. Because that part of the church that everybody faces during services is the "front", as in "Now children I want all eyes to the front!" and "Hey you up the back, what's 9 times 7?"

In the interests of clarity, I have also split the two reconstructions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amandajm (talk • contribs) 05:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

I think two sequences differently numbered is too confusing (plus you missed the Hetoimasia off the Marian sequence altogether), so I have gone back to a somewhat changed single sequence. I think the alternative sequences of the narratives could just be put in numbers below the descriptions. Are you going to update the drawing? With big numbers only would be best I think, in view of the alternative proposed subjects (which I rather think we have not exhausted yet). In this case the two missing roundels should get numbers too I suppose. Neither sequence follows a direct path; the Adoration of the Magi is not in strict sequence whatever you do. Johnbod 18:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bad Wikibehaviour of ... well reader, you be the judge..

Despite all written before, the general consensus towards an established version, user:Johnbod reverted to a version of his own (i.e., pre-Edit War). Next time he'll do such, I suggest to signal him as disruptor. --Attilios 00:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments voiced above:

Support for Attilios: 6 (now 5- see 52 Pickup below) including him. All had been canvassed by him, none have contributed to the article except by reverting. I can't say I recognise any but Attilios and occasionally Biruitorul as contributing to any Visual arts articles. None commented against splitting, except Dahn (who was ok with it, with the commune taking the straight title).

Support for splitting: 6 now 7 - including at least 2 canvassed by Attilios to vote the other way. At least 4 have very solid records on Visual arts articles (not including myself). With Amandajm who did not comment, but whose changes to the pictures were also reverted by Attilios (and who was also originally canvessed by Attilios), this includes all the major contributors to the article (as it now stands - which is not "my" version, but includes significant work by three people).

There is a clear concensus for the articles to split; apart from Attilios, all the commenting Visual arts editors wanted it. Please do not start reverting again, and especially please don't vandalistically blank the entire frescoes article, as you have just done. If you do, it will go to arbitration. I also note your many highly uncivil comments about me here and on many talk pages. Johnbod 01:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop to kid us. There's only a single support to your idea. And the splitting was to move the frescoes stuff to an article about the frescoes (i.e., maybe entitled [[Santa Maria foris portas (Castelseprio)), not to have them under Castelseprio, and when one seeking stuff about the commune obliged to a double link on Castelseprio (commune). The truth is that you want the frescoes under this page, as you tried to do before the Edit War, and all the rest moved away where it can make less harm to your personal (for me, bizarre) tastes. I repeat, stop to kid the Wikipedia community. And... nobody was canvassed by me). I told them the problem, but they were free to express their opinion here. They are not my friend who obey to my commands. Bye. --Attilios 01:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what canvassing means - you told them how to vote. Various titles were discussed, but since the frescoes clearly have international significance, whilst the commune does not, and since all the other non-geo template links are for the frescoes, it is clear under normal WP rules that the frescoes are the "primary meaning", and should have the main title.

I don't really understand the problem. All your supporters only mention the standard format, which you now have in that article. Everybody should be happy now. Plenty of much larger communes have distinguishers in their title. Johnbod 01:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

All supporters of the splitting mentioned to move the frescoes stuff to an article about them, not under Castelseprio itself. Is this at least clear for you? --Attilios 01:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said just now, normal WP rules apply, and it is clear the frescoes are the primary meaning in English of Castelseprio. Johnbod 01:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

All supporters of the splitting mentioned to move the frescoes stuff to an article about them, not under Castelseprio itself. Is this at least clear for you? And, distinguishers in larger commune are when the name of the commune can be confused with other with same name (ie. Syracuse, Italy and Syracuse, New York. What's the meaning to have under Castelseprio something regarding a single feature of the city itself? Do we have the churches of Arezzo or Orvieto, which are their main point of interest, put under the namesake articles, and the city stuff under Arezzo (commune) or Orvieto (commune)? Waht about the Ducal Palace of Urbino and Urbino. Also, as a note, there's nothing in Wikipedia rules saying that the opinion of an user who has not contributed much to an article must have less value than that of one writing much stuff on it. Bye. --Attilios 01:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: "the frescoes are the primary meaning in English of Castelseprio" is totally meaningless. Are you kidding me? I seem that "Castelseprio" in English means "Castelseprio", not "frescoes of Castelseprio". --Attilios 01:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

PPS: Again, I didn't tell them how to vote. I'd never permit. I simply exposed them my opinion on that problem. If they come there and voted against your ridiculous frame of the page, you cannot blame them as my slaves or followers, as they aren't. Please stop to put forward such a feeble excuse to deprive of importance the others' opinion. Don't you see you're getting offensive on other Wikipedians? If you would be less obtuse, you'd put the frescoes stuff to a page entitled Santa Maria foris Portas and the problem will be solved. Instead you've get stuck with your primitive idea that Castelseprio is Frescoes of Castelseprio, and you won't feel happy until Wikipedia will conform yo your fix idea. --Attilios 01:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Most references in the literature are to plain Castelseprio, not the church name. Urbino etc are obviously quite different cases - far larger towns or cities, with many things to see. The current (until you changed it) Castelseprio article covers all the monuments of the archeological zone, ie the original site of Castelseprio, which is quite separate to the modern village - walled off, pay to enter etc. As you occasionally seem to recognise above, Mapmaster specifically supported this name split, and others voiced arguments which support my contention that the frescoes represent the primary meaning of Castelseprio in English. Johnbod 02:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

from WP:D: "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page." (my italics).

From the page above:

Clearly supportive of my split: myself and Mapmaster ("I have no problem with Castelseprio pointing to the church/fresco page"); other comments by editors:

Amandajm: "I have tried to balance the information concerning the relative insignificance of this place with its artistic significance....."

Javits2000: "Sta. Maria is certainly the major reason for the "notability" of the commune..." and "It's true that art historians will refer to the paintings in shorthand simply as "Castelseprio,""

- (these two being with me the significant editors of the article)

Stbalbach: "when people say "Castelseprio" they almost always mean the Frescoes, and not the church or the town. According to the general guidelines on article naming we should use the name that most people would expect to find when doing a search"

- though these last two favoured different split titles (but now see below), and Amandajm never expressed an opinion here, their comments clearly go towards the frescoes being the "primary meaning" in terms of WP:D. I was justified in making the split on this basis (as I had said I would); your reaction is ...well, lets just say excessive, and unhelpful to the project Johnbod 04:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It aint worth the ink. Johnbod; just take the frescoes out and make them their own entry. If you want make the term Castel.. to be a disambiguation page. and point to two pages Frescoes of Castelp... and Castel... (commune) No one will miss it or the frescoes, it will only be one click away.CARAVAGGISTI 05:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit more ink. I'm coming around on this one; the _historical_ article is a significant source of information on both Lombard affairs & the monuments; the census and topographical data on the modern comune seem irrelevant to this. This is actually the operative distinction: Castelseprio as archaeological park, v. Castelseprio as modern town. They are actually two distinct sites, the park lying outside the comune; the problem is that they both have the same name.

Comparable cases: Philippi and Filippoi (saved by the phonetic shift); Mystras, at present an ungainly hybrid like this one; Ephesus and Selçuk (saved by the conquests).

In any case the archaeological park is clearly more significant. Split : archaeological park under Castelseprio, comune under Castelseprio (comune). --Javits2000 09:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

For clarity, the two articles as I left them last night were "Castelseprio" like this and "Castelseprio (commune)" like this. I have asked for mediation in the matter. Johnbod 15:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Splitting makes sense, but not in the way you have done it. The article Castelseprio should be about the commune, since that is what Castelseprio is, as it is stated in the introduction to this version

For the modern commune, see Castelseprio (commune) Castelseprio is the name of a comune in the extreme North of Italy. The fame of Castelseprio lies in the frescoes contained in the small Church of Santa Maria foris portas .

Whether or not the archaelogical site is the more important is a purely subjective matter. But it is a fact that neither the site nor the frescoes are named Castelseprio, but located in Castelseprio. The location should be described in the Castelseprio article, and the artistic/archaeological details should be in an article entitled Frescoes of Castelseprio or something like that.

For example, see Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Would it make sense to have this page contain only information about the Battle of Gettysburg or the Gettysburg Address? Of course not. The article Gettysburg, Pennsylvania is about the location Gettysburg - it contains information about its historical significance, but not an overly proportional amount of the article. The things that make Gettysburg famous are expanded upon in separate articles. This is what should be done here- 52 Pickup 11:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request

A request for mediation on the frescoes dispute was placed here. I would like to share some of my opinions in the hope that we can find a solution that both Johnbod and Attilios as well as everyone else who has an interest in this page can be happy with. I have very little stake in this article as I am not Italian, have never been to Northern Italy, and had never heard of Castelseprio or its frescoes before today. I am just one person, and my opinions are just that. My voice should not count more than anyone else's on this issue, but I hope that my lack of experience with this subject can be an asset.

First, I would like to give some suggestions to all the parties involved and then post a few questions of my own. First, I suggest that we start anew -- let all old disputes, name-calling, etc. be forgotten and go forward hoping to make the best article or articles we can. Let's also remember to assume good faith and be civil to one another. There were some allegations of canvassing and there appeared to be questions about what, specifically, that meant. I would encourage everyone to look at WP:CANVAS and the policies there.

Now I have a question for each side in hopes of inspiring constructive dialog. Johnbod and supporters, look at Pisa. I know there are many things in Pisa beyond the Leaning Tower (a major university for instance). I think many people naturally think of the tower when you mention Pisa, yet mention of the tower or pictures of it is not until well into the article where there is a link to a separate Leaning Tower of Pisa article. What would be wrong with such a setup for this article?

Attilios and supporters, have a look at Rome. Notice that the infobox has all of the normal information, but there is also a picture of the Colosseum. Rome is also technically a comune according to the article there. What would be wrong with an infobox like on the Rome article with mention of the frescoes in the leader and more detail further down the article?

--Selket ^Talk 00:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've nothing against such a solution. I don't get stick like a child if the solution is reasonable. As for the unpleasant accuse of canvassing against me, it can be easily reduced to WP:CANVAS#Friendly notice, I seem. I just sent 4 or 5 message of ask for support in the poll, but, I repeat it, despite using a somewhat brisky language against Johnbod (but his edits were' clearly wikipedically awful IMHO... and, if you see how all other users replied in the poll, maybe I wasn't so far from the truth - but I can apologize for that) those users are not my friends, nor my puppets. And in fact one, whom I collaborated often, voted against me. What's the problem? --Attilios 01:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your examples are really suggesting. I think both Attilios & I now accept there must be two articles (although paradoxically neither of us wanted this at first). Have you compared my two versions of the articles as I left them (diff links above)? I don't think the content or appearance of the commune article is especially in dispute. My version of the commune article had the infobox at the top etc - in the commune article I don't really care whether there is a photo of the frescoes or the coats of arms in the infobox. My contention essentially is that practically no one will ever look at the commune article except by mistake when looking for the frescoes (I would not argue this if we were in Italian WP, but we aren't).

I think (I hope) the only question to be resolved is the naming of the two articles, essentially as they stood after my last edits. Pisa is hardly comparable - it has a pop of 90K & many other famous things. Plus the monuments are in the middle of the lived-in city centre, unlike Castelseprio. As far as I am aware (and I am sure Attilios would have pointed it out if I'm wrong) there is no WP policy that says that a town article has to take precedence to the plain name. Therefore normal WP rules apply - as discussed above. Attilios, without actually addressing the matter in terms of WP policy at all, cannot accept this. I am sure there are similar examples - I pointed to Paestum above, a very similar set up of a ruined town, with a modern settlement, which actually has a much larger population than Castelseprio, outside the fenced-off archaological area. The modern settlement is not even mentioned in the article! But because the commune containing Paestum happens to be called Capaccio rather than Paestum, this does not cause a problem. Incidentally, although Attilios refers to it as a "city", Castelseprio is a rural Comune, and most of the 1,267 inhabitants may well live in smaller settlements or individual farms around.

Going further afield there is Borobudur - a long article on the famous monument, but no mention of a modern settlement. Follow the Wikitravel link and you find: " There are a number of losmen and basic hotels in the village of Borobudur just south of the park entrance. Owing to the site's popularity with tourists prices are, by Indonesian standards, somewhat inflated for what you get." So no Borobudur and Borobudur (temple) there.

Re canvassing, I think para 2 of WP:CANVAS puts it well "Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." - none of the people Attilios canvassed had ever edited the article (and several I would guess had never heard of it), and only one I think is a regular editor of Italian commune articles.

Hope this helps. Attilios, your last comment on my talk page was utterly mysterious to me, but maybe it's better left that way. Johnbod 04:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me make a comment about canvasing, and my agenda. I mentioned the canvasing above only because Attilios had said on the mediation page that he did not know what johnbod meant by that. I was only trying to point out what the term is used to describe and was not trying to point fingers. I would like to look forward from this point, to find a configuration of the articles in question where everyone is happy. To be quite honest, I'm really not interested in whether or not Attilios' actions were canvasing. This is what I meant when I said we should put the old disputes in the past.

Now, just to make sure I am up to speed, is the current dispute over whether the modern town or the frescoes in the church should get the article name Castelseprio with the other relegated to frescoes of Castelseprio or Comune of Castelseprio? If this is the case, what would be wrong with creating both the frescoes of Castelseprio and Comune of Castelseprio (or some other such names) pages with Castelseprio being a disambiguation page? We could then go through all of the links in wikipedia and make sure that the ones that are talking about the town point to the town and those talking about the frescoes could point to the frescoes. --Selket ^Talk 06:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is what the dispute is about (as far as I am concerned, and I think Attilios too - eg from his comments on the case page). A disam page is a possible solution, but one neither of us are proposing. It seems frankly silly whichever way the titles go, as there are only the two options - there are apparently no other Castelseprios, the place being too small to have anyone using it as a surname, unlike every other village in Italy. On normal WP disam rules there should not be a disam page, as there is (in my view) a clear primary meaning in English. But Attilios just won't accept anything except his view, which he does not attempt to argue in terms of WP policy. Really I see this as a routine naming dispute, differeciated only by the extraordinary way he has chosen to pursue it. I don't see why the normal rules should be abandoned just because of his attitude. Obviously both articles in the versions he has reverted had disam links to the other at the top Johnbod 08:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with a disambig page because: let' tke the example of Carpaccio of Caravaggio. They are far more important than their namesake commune, but, what Johnbod misses, is that they calle themselves like the commune, so the disambig has a reason to be. As long as Castelseprio is not the name of the frescoes of Castelseprio, it sounds very wrong for a serious encyclopedia to have the article Castelseprio redirecting to a thing differently named. Do you think Britannica would act in this way? I can't really understand Johnbod, as the entire article, apart ten lines at the beginning, deals with the frescoes, you must just hit the PGDOWN key to read immediately all you want about frescoes in the entry as it is now. From what I see, he disagrees mainly with the presence of the infobox, as for him it distracts readers from the fact that, according to him, Castelseprio does not mean (in English) a commune in Lombardy, but only its frescoes. But I don't think that history of art books are the Bible: just to give a similar example, once the article Caserta here redirected to Caserta Palace... all other entries referenced to Caserta as if that city, with 50,000 inhabitants (!!!) was its palace. So I can understand that this is a common practice in art books, but, for me, it's simply a misuse of language. Bye. --Attilios 10:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you both raise good points, and I'm glad we've toned down the name calling a bit. So, I have a question for Jognbod. If you agree that the frescoes aren't called Castelseprio then why should the name of their location point to them? It does seem a bit odd. --Selket ^Talk 10:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, they are the primary meaning of Castelseprio in English. From WP:D:

" ===Primary topic=== (this is a quote Attilios - please don't mess up) When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page."

It's very simple! As I keep pointing out, Attilios makes no attempt to justify his position in terms of WP policies, nor, I imagine, would he attempt to deny that the frescoes "will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings".

The Caravaggio example is an excellent one (thanks Attilios) - despite the town having a population of 14K, the artist rightly gets the plain title (without first names etc), with a disam at the top. This is exactly what I am proposing. The commune for Paestum is in fact Capaccio - my typo, not Carpaccio, so this is not relevant, although I notice that the food (named after the painter) gets the plain title, with a disam to the painter. Caserta, with 50K people, is a quite different case, like Pisa. Johnbod 11:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree and stop, as many others did in the first poll. Are all that people ones who dislike WP policies? I seem that other people have tried to tell you the same I'm pointing out, but of course you don't want to change your opinion. I repeat, as for me the situation is good. I can't really see why Johnbod wants to remove that initial short paragraph clarifying that Castelseprio is a city. Is that such a happiness? Is the current article missing anything about Castelseprio's frescoes? Is such a fatigue to push the DOWN key two times? --Attilios 11:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

now this is a place where my unfamiliarity with the topic hurts so I need to ask you two for some clarification. Would any English speaker use the word Castelseprio by itself to mean the frescoes at Castelseprio? As examples:

• "Castelseprio was discovered in the Church of of Santa Maria foris portas in 1944."
• "Castelseprio constitute the finest early medieval pictorial cycle in terms of artistic quality, and are considered unique in early medieval European art."

Do the two of you agree whether such sentances make sense or not? --Selket ^Talk 16:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course they are meaningless. It's what I was trying to let understand with my previous discourses. "Castelseprio" in Italian means Seprio Castle, clearly referring to a castle (and, for extension, to a settlement), not to a fresco. It is the name of a city. Bye. --Attilios 16:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, we seem to be going backwards here! The edit poll Attilios started shows a clear majority in favour of splitting, which I thought he respected. If we go back on that we open a whole other can of worms; don't lets do that. With regard to the 2 questions: 1)No 2) Yes.

Attilios is quite right that Castelseprio was a fortress and settlement, though never big enough to be called a city in English, I think (town yes probably, before the destruction). This is all surrounded by medieval/Roman walls, and totally in ruins and uninhabited. It is fenced-off and you pay to enter it when it is open. It is called the "archeological zone". All of this is the subject of the article I think should be at "Castelseprio" - not just the frescoes, although they are way the most famous element, and what is usually meant by "Castelseprio" in English. The modern village, centre of the rural municipality/"comune" also called Castelseprio, lies nearby but quite separate.

The question is, which of these is an user of English WP likely to be looking for? Is it very much more likely to be one and not the other? I am clear the answer is yes to both, as are many other editors - see quotes I collected above (10 Feb, just before CARAVAGGISTI post). But it seems impossible to debate with Attilios in a reasonable manner, he just reverts everything he doesn't like (his only contribution to the articles) and won't discuss the matter in terms of WP policies, so we just go round in circles. Johnbod 17:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In the poll there were six, repeat six people supporting my version (ie, with ALL frescoes infos, and with the commune infobox.... simply that is the difference), all the ones who wrote plainly support: and none of them spoke of splitting. I can't absolutely see where is the clear moajority you were speaking of. Yes, I imagine that people could seek here for the frescoes, and in fact they'll find all the infos they want about them on Castelseprio. I don't see where's the lack of reasoning here. What I seem, is that Johnbod deformates facts at his will with very ease. But this is my opinion. And (and now I address to Selket) it's clear that Johnbod is unable to grasp the subtle language difference you were speaking of. --Attilios 18:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If you followed the discusion you would see the current position (after Pickup 52's 2nd comment) is 7 for a split, 5 against. There are currently 3 (me, Javits, Pickup 52) supporting the frescoes having the main article title. Others mention different titles or don't mention the issue. Only 2 (you and Dahn) have specifically said the commune should get the plain name in the event of a split. Now you are criticising my grasp of English. You couldn't make it up!

Are we ever going to actually talk about the issue - WP naming & disam policy ? - Johnbod 18:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we are. WP:D says, "When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate or add a link to a disambiguation page." It goes on to say, "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page." As I see it, Castelseprio should link directly to the frescoes only if Casteseprio is used commonly to refer to the frescoes, themselves. I think this is unlikely, particularly given [4] and [5]. On the issue of splitting the article, I thought this was already resolved. Is this not the case? -Selket ^Talk 19:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I seem also. Thanks for mediation: I seemed your decision looked obvious since the very beginning, but clearly not everybody can think as I do. See you later. --Attilios 19:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Two quick things. I gave a suggestion not a decision as I am a mediator not an arbitrator. If Johnbod can provide a [WP:RS|reliable source]] for his usage, I would reconsider. I think that is unlikely however. -Selket ^Talk 19:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you've taken on board that the Castelseprio article (my meaning) covers the whole

archaeological zone, not just the frescoes. I don't know if you actually looked at any of the links on Google, but they all concern this - the ones that say "hotels, businesses etc" in Castelseprio actually take you to hotels etc in nearby places - there don't seem to be any hotels in the modern village, although it seems there is a restaurant. The first link is the official Castelseprio website, which unfortunately seems not to be working tonight. You should look at this (rather large) site (references in the articles)- it is all about the monuments. I don't know what the lack of definitions (except for Italian Wikipedia) is supposed to demonstrate either way. You should do an English language only Google search, and look at what the sites are actually referring to. This exactly makes my point. I notice from one of the sites that the archeological zone and the modern village are 1.5 km apart. I don't really want to trawl for references in books but I will if necessary. Johnbod 22:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We are on encyclopedia, not on Google. I don't totally understand what's the problem: one writes here castelseprio and obtain soon all the info he wants about the frescoes with simple key, not even with the need of a mouse click. I think, Johnbod, all the polls as well as the mediator whom yourself' called, voted against you. Can't you cease at all and devote yourself to make other good articles? How many negative opinions you still need to hear before moving to other? Bye and good work. --Attilios 23:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As you know, it was your insistence on reverting everything by any editor that did not meet your exact specification that brought us here. Johnbod 23:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, the bickering isn't constructive. --Selket ^Talk 23:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's try something new

Since we don't seem to be making much progress I'm going to suggest something new. Why don't each of you email me a description of your ideal configuration of the article(s) and a description of a configuration that you would consider the best compromise you would be willing to accept. I say email them to me because I don't want you reading each others before you write it. When I get both of them, I will post them both here and we can see where that leaves us. -Selket ^Talk 17:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, will do Johnbod 17:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No need of send it by e-mail, from my side. As it is now it's OK, as it's exactly standard for Italian communes and regarding Wikipedia policies. Moving the frescoes to a separate page it'd be also good for me. --Attilios 21:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Attilios, it's too bad you didn't want to give a "best compromise you would be willing to accept." I will post Johnbod's response to me below.

My ideal versions (once the necessity for a split is accepted) are as they were after I did the split: "Castelseprio" like this and "Castelseprio (commune)" like this.

The current version is of course how Attilios wants it, since he has reverted everything else.

As I've said before the content of the split articles is not really in dispute, and I hope does not become so. It is really about the naming. I didn't realise until just now how much history Attilios has on this - one of his two open AMA Requests for assistance cases (Oct & Nov 2006) concerns the Italian comune infobox.

I would reluctantly accept a disam page for "Castelseprio", with the two articles "Castelseprio (frescoes)" and "Castelseprio (commune)" - I think that most people would not know the name of the church, and "archeological zone" is too confusing. We all I think know perfectly well that 99% of English WP users are going to be looking for the frescoes, and half the 1% remainder for the "archeological zone" or site of the fortress in general.

By the way the official Castelseprio site is working again, and well worth a look; although the website of the comune, it is entirely concerned with the archaelogical zone, 1.5 km from the modern village. There is only 1 page in English, but if you click on the church you get into a big site in Italian, which you can get the gist of even without speaking any. The bibliography is worth a look too.

Would everyone be happy with a setup like there is on the Italian wikipedia? It has a separate article for the church, etc. Or, if not happy, would you be at least satisfied? I think both articles here would have substantially more information than the Italian pages, but the general format could be the same. --Selket ^Talk 18:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The Italian article (which classicly is not linked at all!!! from the comume), is called "Master of Castelseprio" ie is in theory a biographical article for the putative painter of the frescoes. I have not seen this name used in any of the many academic works referenced in the article, although of course there are plenty of others, especially in Italian, that may use it. Plus many scholars, like Leveto, say there were two artists involved. So I don't think that "master of Castelseprio" itself is an acceptable title for en:WP, regardless of any dispute - it is certainly not the commonest-used name in English for anything. .

Very interestingly, I do see from the Italian Comune article, that: "Il capoluogo è posto in Vico Seprio (da cui il nome del comune in insubre, Visèvar), mentre a Castel Seprio resta la zona archeologica."

meaning:

"The "headplace" (Italian technical term - capoluogo) is at Vico Seprio (from which comes the local dialect (called Insubre) name of the comune, Visèvar), while at Castelseprio there is the archeological zone"

- so the 1,267 people actually live at Vico Seprio and on farms, whilst it seems no-one lives at Castelseprio at all - the A zone is all there is there! Really I think the comune article should therefore be called Vico Seprio, or Visèvar, which of course avoids our problem entirely.

There is I think a genuine cultural difference here; to Italians, like the Spanish and to a lesser extent the French, the name of the municipality you live in is very important. To the English (where unlike in Italy - see comune - borders are frequently changed etc), it is often not important at all, and they are regarded as artificial as US congressional districts, and generally don't form part of the postal address etc. The US is perhaps somewhere in the middle. But after all this is the English WP; most people wanting to know about Castelseprio, or even Vico Seprio, won't care which body is responsible for collecting the rubbish or maintaining the local roads. Johnbod 03:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm Italian, and can frankly tell that the last sentence is meaningless. You are offending them by saying that the comune in itself has no interest: I think that every Italian reader would be stunned to find that his commune has a separate page, while the Castelseprio page being devoted to something with a different name (ie, "Frescoes of Castelseprio" or "Santa Maria foris portas" or whatever). You are also wrong: not all people live in Vico Seprio, being a "capoluogo" meaning that simply the municipal offices are there. It could even be that Vico Seprio has much less inhabitants than Castelseprio itself. To Selket: as I've told from the beginning, that's no problem to have the frescoes to another page, although I find nothing bad in the current layout. It's more compact. Bye. --Attilios 17:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Johnbod, how do you feel about the current layout? --Selket ^Talk 17:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

To answer Attilios, it's clear that nothing except feral cats and (let us hope) a nightwatchman actually lives at Castelseprio itself - "Si è avvertita la necessità di un aggiornamento riguardo agli studi su Castelseprio (zona del castrum) e Vico Seprio (l’attuale abitato di Castelseprio)" , translation of italicised bit: ...of Castelseprio (zone of the castle) and Vico Seprio (the modern settlement of Castelseprio).." from here - some at least semi-official conference agenda. Furthermore the comune only exists since 1947.

To answer Selket, I have covered that above many times surely. Everybody is ready to split, it's just the titles we're talking about. The leads of both articles need a slight rewrite to include this new information about Vico Seprio being the actual name of the village etc, but now we know that in the geographical sense Castelseprio proper has no inhabitants, contrary to Attilios's talk earler of a "city", and is only the administrative title given to this small area, the case for the zone getting the main, plain, title surely becomes unanswerable? Johnbod 18:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is specified that "in 1842 Vico Seprio changed name in Castelseprio", and in the whole communal website, in any occurrence, the modern city is referred to as "Castelseprio". The dinstiction between "Vico Seprio" and "Castelseprio" looks just merely administrative. Bye. --Attilios 20:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Vico Seprio is clearly still used as the normal name - 24,700 Google hits - rather impressive for such a small place. I don't see any mention at all on the site of the modern settlement except on the page you link to, where it is called Vico Seprio until they note the change in 1842 in the last sentence. Johnbod 01:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If I might break in once more with my two cents: I see no objection against breaking the article into "Castelseprio," referring to the historical, Lombard city / archaeological zone, and "Castelseprio (comune)," referring to the modern settlement / municipal entity. The two are clearly topographically distinct (so far as I can tell no one's living in the "old city") and the notability of the former clearly trumps that of the latter. As I noted somewhere above a similar division has been employed e.g. for Filippoi / Philippi. The "Italian reader" would presumably not be "stunned" by such a compromise. --Javits2000 03:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the current status of this dispute. Can we consider it resolved now? --Selket ^Talk 17:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The articles are still just as Attilios left them, so he is no doubt happy; I am not. Johnbod 17:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I note the present configuration has meant that the article has just been decided to be outside the scope of the Visual arts project - which logically follows from their criteria I suppose, but really isn't right. Another problem caused by Attilios's version Johnbod 22:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more I can do here. I'm going to request another mediator. --Selket ^Talk 00:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-state

Look, this is absurd. It's been agreed for months that we have two articles here, and that the present article is to be split into a historical/visual arts article, and an article (or, more properly, a stub) on the modern administrative unit. The only point of contention is the naming of these two entries.

I've twice now stated my reasons for preferring "Castelseprio" = medieval Lombard city & modern archaeological park; "Castelseprio (comune)" = modern adminsitrative unit. These points have never been addressed by Attilios. In fact, I get the impression that he hasn't understood them, since he continues to propose that the historical / visual arts article be moved to "Frescoes of Castelseprio" or "Santa Maria foris portas".

Neither option would suffice, since the subject of the historical / visual arts article is not solely a church, much less is it solely a series of paintings; rather, it concerns an extinct walled city, in which no one presently lives, and which is geographically distinct from the modern comune. (See the lovely series of maps here.)

Attilios, what is your objection to this? Or, alternatively, could you propose a different pair of names that would properly address the distinction between medieval city and modern hamlet? I apologize if I've missed something in the forest of type above, but so far as I can tell these points have not been addressed. --Javits2000 09:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I really cannot understand that we are AGAIN and again losing time to such a silly matter, instead of working to improve the general mediocrity of this encyclopedia. Bye. --Attilios 10:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not a terribly useful reply; my points remain unanswered, and I think it's clear that neither Johnbod nor myself consider this a "silly matter." An amenable resolution would count toward the improvement of the encyclopedia, as the article is at present a confusing hybrid. Best, --Javits2000 11:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

New article

I've started Frescoes of Castelseprio because I think there is sufficient verifiable content to justify a stand alone article. Addhoc 13:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is, but please leave it as it is whilst the Mediation is in progress, which it is. There is already a seperate article version from the history - see top of page.Johnbod 14:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll leave this article, however, agreeing there is sufficient verifiable content to justify another article doesn't constitute a viable reason not to have the other article. Addhoc 15:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

? Sorry, what does that mean? The whole mediation is over the title of the other article, since all parties seem agreed a split is desireable or at least acceptable. Johnbod 15:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The mediation stalled mid-March, now over two months ago. Addhoc 22:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

HHH is working on it now (see his talk page). Johnbod 22:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, he's just accepted the case. Addhoc 22:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so in the meantime could we please get rid of this new Frescoes of Castelseprio article? This particular title has been discussed before, and I, among others, find it insufficient & lacking in context (i.e. the frescoes are in a church, which was in an ancient/medieval city; and the information on all of these things is lacking in the present article -- for example, it doesn't even describe the architectural form of the church in which the frescoes are found). Mediation is now active again and I see every reason to expect a quick resolution this time around. The new article just confuses the matter. Best, --Javits2000 09:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Split of article

Have split off the comune information to Castelseprio (comune) as per the arbitration discussion. --Javits2000 14:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)