Jump to content

Talk:Mona Lisa replicas and reinterpretations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Author's note: images Penwatchdog (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit]

Although factual and grammatical corrections & contributions are welcome and appreciated, I'd like some respect afforded to the general layout of images, at least for the time being. I've already deleted to satisfy initial concerns, but I stand by the layout as it now exists. I think the images maintain a certain flow, without leaving expanses of text and inter-sectional negative space. Being in fact a NEW form of encyclopedia, ladies and gentlemen, certain leeway should be afforded, especially as I have specific background in such matters. Furthermore, additional images have been solicited to illustrate specific points noted in the article, and interim editing of images will disrupt upcoming edits. All suggestions are welcome, but should first be noted here. I hope I'm not out of line in this respect, and I appreciate the privilege of being a contributor, but there's still something to be said about not stepping on people's feet. I won't step on yours. Penwatchdog (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The modern and contemporary sections of this article are excellent; I can only suggest that you mention Subodh Gupta's Et tu, Duchamp? somewhere. The sixteenth-century section needs more work; it would be better if the headers referred to the various versions as the "Prado version", the "Isleworth version" * and "Mona Vanna" for nude Mona Lisas. The occasional bolding throughout the article isn't necessary and art historians always refer to Leonardo, never to da Vinci. Also, I think a better title for this article would be Works after Mona Lisa.
* The first of these is much more important than the second; as you can see here Leonardo never even painted on canvas (the only Leonardos on that support were transferred from wood panels by later restorers) so I can't think why a canvas cardon-dated to when he was at most three years old should be proof of his authorship. Ham 21:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The header suggestion is very helpful and I think I'll make that edit right now. My original headers had been installed during construction and wound up staying that way. I'm sure there's plenty more that needs attention, so keep-it-coming, friends! I'm no Leonardo scholar, per se, but he's certainly a topic of interest and I happened find source material so I ran with it. Also, I hadn't noticed there was an Isleworth article of its own. I'll add a "Main article" link in my next edit. Yes, I'll go through and revise all da Vinci and Mona misnomers as well! Title: had trouble settling on one, but in the end I hope keeping "Mona Lisa" up-front will work well! I was considering Mona Lisa derivative works. Or? Thanks, Ham, keep in touch. Penwatchdog (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unreliable sources

[edit]

I've removed some that seemed to me really bad. There may be others. e.g. the link to the Japan Times[1] doesn't go to the target. Star767 (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed all TALK feedback

[edit]

All da Vincis and Monas have been duly corrected. Headers have been revised to specify artworks, along with pertinent Main article links. Unnecessary bolds have been thinned. Updated the url for a Japan Times source (didn't alter any other info within that reference; hope that doesn't cause a problem). I'll spend free time this weekend composing suggested additions and expansions using source material which has come to my attention. Your continued interest and input are welcome. Penwatchdog (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Now accepting the next round of critique and assistance! Penwatchdog (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mona Lisa replicas and reinterpretations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mona Lisa replicas and reinterpretations. 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:

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) 06:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does this copy deserve a mention in this article?

[edit]

This Spiegel article talks about a Mona Lisa copy currently auctioned at Christie's (see their website). They claim it's early 17th century, painter unknown, worth estimated 200-300k€.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mona_Lisa_replicas_and_reinterpretations&oldid=1204047823"