Talk:Pontormo

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

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 articles

Full name

The Britannica article is called Jacopo da Pontormo. Is there any particular reason why the first name is omitted in the Wikipedia article? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Es:, fr:, and it: use Pontormo. I think it is like Rembrandt, or Michelangelo, or Ghirlandajo for that matter ;-) I wouldn't object to moving it to the full name though. Either is fine with me. DVD+ R/W 17:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both would be acceptable (as would Jacopo Pontormo, used on Pl: and the wga), but in my experience simply Pontormo is most common. Skarioffszky 18:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would defer to the Getty Index on this, which preferences Pontormo. Planetneutral 06:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vasari & Pontormo, Tone

Oh dear, I feel that poor Pontormo has been subject to some rather rough treatment here! Vasari had a field day making fun of Pontormo, that characterization seems to emerge here in almost every section. But as Elizabeth Pilliod has (I think convincingly) argued, Vasari had good reason to run down Pontormo: he and Bronzino were rivals for Medici patronage. In fact, in the years between Vite editions, Vasari was in the process of wresting courtly favor away from Bronzino and securing it all for himself. So, certainly Vasari shouldn’t be ignored, but perhaps taken with two grains of salt? Anyway, that’s why I’m trying to deemphasize this notion of ‘Pontormo as emotionally volatile’ a little bit… Hope no one minds! Thanks Isocephaly (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Recent scholarship like this [1] might be a valuable source, and prove helpful in this regard. JNW (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jacopo Pontormo 047.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Jacopo Pontormo 047.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Pontormo. 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) 02:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent painting dates

While creating the Pontormo template, I found that many of the painting dates listed in the Anthology of works section do not match the dates claimed in the corresponding article. For example, Adoration of the Magi is dated c. 1522–1523 in the painting's article and on WikiMedia commons, but this article dates it to 1519–1521. Many of these dates in the article are unreferenced, which makes it all the more difficult to check from what original source these years came from. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 21:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]