Talk:Iconclass

Libraries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts

Mention of Wikidata

Does the below information belong in the article? It seems to me it is only of interest to people working on wikidata and as far as I can understand, that's basically a wikipedia project topic and not of general interest. If it belongs, I think the sentence should be moved, it seems to be in the middle of a paragraph about something else entirely.

"These can be matched to Wikidata introducing the iconclass "hierarchy of somethings" to the current Wikidata property structure." Bob the Inept (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to mention it, but it is certainly not very useful in that context (and Wikidata has even less iconclass notations than the RKDimages database, mostly because it's used more for prints, and Wikidata doesn't have many prints yet). I explained about the depicts/concept thing in more detail. Hope it helps. Jane (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I attended an iconclass expert meeting wrote about it here: outreach:GLAM/Newsletter/September 2016/Contents/Netherlands report. Jane (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080220200839/http://www.kb.nl/manuscripts/browser/index.html to http://www.rosspub.com/iconclass.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baffled

I am somewhat baffled by the example used of Peter Paul Rubens "Bathsheba at the Fountain" to illustrate "Bathsheba (alone) receiving a letter from David" when she clearly has two people with her. SuUrely this is a mistake? Leutha (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's Ok I have fixed it and added proper refs. Leutha (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]