Jump to content

Talk:Raphael/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Image Placement

The image box for Sanzio 01.jpg seems to be placed rather oddly, at least in my browser. Can anyone confirm this?  Esper  rant  05:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Images

Images uploaded but still not used:

Raphael's birth and death dates

  • The date of 6 April 1483 has been calculated using the Proleptic Gregorian Calendar. My question: Why? The Gregorian was introduced on 15 October 1582, and was NOT retrospectively applied. The Proleptic Gregorian was a later invention for use in scientific contexts, and it has no relevance for the dating of ordinary historical events. Just as the Julian Calendar does not apply to dates on or after 15 October 1582 in Italy (and some other countries), the (Proleptic) Gregorian does not apply to events occurring prior to that time. If Raphael was born on Good Friday 1483, and that day fell on 28 March (using the only calendar then available, the Julian), then 28 March 1483 is Raphael's date of birth and 6 April 1483 is simply wrong.
  • Similar argument for his date of death. If he died on the eve of his 37th birthday, that means he died in 1520, by which time the Julian Calendar was still in place. The only correct date we should use is 27 March 1520.
  • Paragraph 3 under "Major works" says he died on his 37th birthday, but the last line of the article says he died on the eve of his 37th birthday. At least one of these is incorrect. Does anybody know the truth?
  • I have also seen it written that both his dates of birth and death were Good Friday. Can anybody verify or refute this?

Cheers JackofOz 06:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to know if what appears in the article is speculation on the part of the person who posted it, or if he or she can point us to some other source of that information.
I agree especially with your first bulleted paragraph. If he was indeed born on Good Friday, and that fell on 28 March 1483 Julian, then he was probably born on 28 March Julian, and the 6 April date is just an error. Note that 6 April was a Sunday on the Julian calendar, Friday on the proleptic Gregorian calendar.
But the conclusions drawn in the article is based on a speculation that if the date of birth was on the Julian calendar, the date of death must have been as well. That doesn't hold water.
  • Dates of birth are often harder to verify than dates of death, especially in those days long before registration of births. Dates of death of famous people, however, are generally available from a variety of sources, so it is unlikely that any discrepancy there would have remained uncommented on for very long.
Good Friday in 1520, at least in the Danish calendar calculations in the "Dage" program, was on 6 April 1520 Julian calendar. So if his birth and death were indeed both on Good Friday on the Julian calendar, the only Christian calendar in use then, he would have been one week past his birthday at his death. Gene Nygaard 06:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah-hah! The plot thickens. Thanks for that, and let's hope the 'Raphael guru' makes him- or herself known soon. Cheers JackofOz 06:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I searched the histories of the relevant pages and found that at the creation of Raphael on Feb 12, 2002 (as the article Raphael) 62.253.67.6 gave birth and death dates of "April 6?, 1483 - 1520". On the same date 151.24.190.229 changed the dates to "Urbino, April 6?, 1483 - Rome, April 6, 1520" and added the sentence "He died at 37, on his birthday", all of which he apparently got from the current Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Raphael. Then on Feb 15, 2002 User:Wesley removed the question mark. On Nov 13, 2002 User:Eclecticology transferred those dates to Raffaello Santi when he merged Raphael with it, and changed Raphael into a disambiguation page. Finally the note on those dates was added to Raffaello Santi on Apr 15, 2004 by 32.106.41.158. It appears that the last writer converted April 6, 1520 (Gregorian) to March 27, 1520 (Julian) thus concluding that he died on the eve of his birthday (and failed to remove the note that he died on his birthday). The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Raphael Sanzio states on its last page that he died on "Good Friday (April 6) 1520, at the age of thirty-seven, exactly". I suspect that he did indeed die on April 6, 1520 at the age of 37. I also suspect that someone thought that that also meant that April 6, 1483 was a Good Friday. [1] states that he was born on Good Friday in 1483. I confirm via [2] that April 6, 1483 (Julian) was not a Good Friday (it was Sunday).
I recommend that the birth and death dates at the top of the article (April 6, 1483 - April 6, 1520) should not be changed (except delete "see note below"), and that the erroneous speculative note on the dates be removed. It might be advisable to note that he died on Good Friday but was not born on Good Friday, possibly as part of the "He died on his thirty-seventh birthday" sentence. — Joe Kress 12:32, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
I 'concur with that recommendation. Gene Nygaard 13:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC).

Thanks folks for that excellent bit of research. I have now made some amendments to the main page. Cheers JackofOz 01:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If he was born on Good Friday and died on Good Friday, he couldn't have been exactly 37 years old because Good Friday doesn't fall on the same day every year. If was born on a Good Friday and died exactly 37 years later, then he died in March. If he died on a Good Friday on April 6 and if that was exactly 37 years after his birthday, he couldn't have been also born on Good Friday. The last part of the article is confusing on this point because it mentions both that he was born on a Good Friday and died on his 37th birthday on April 6, which would be impossible date-vice if was actually born on a Good Friday. --RossF18 10:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added a clarifying sentence - I hope it helps. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It didn't I'm afraid; the article has moved on since October. Several art historians think they have the answer, though personally I can't be bothered to get my head round the arguments - it seems a very trivial point. Nb alt birth dates, Shearman note etc. Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ninja Turtle

How about a mention about a Ninja turtle being named after him? 71.250.4.126 20:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

--That should be mentioned in a trivia section. ApsbaMd2 (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
No, NO TRIVIA SECTIONS. This is an article about the painter, to see the ninja turtle see
For other uses, see Talk:Raphael/Archive 1 (disambiguation).
. --RossF18 (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Why the attitude Ross? Like it or not, the first time many American children first hear of the 4 great artists by their familiarity with the ninja turtles. I think it's notable for sure. --Ioscius (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I noticed that this page is frequently vandalized, 99.99999999% vandalism coming from no-registered users. Therefore I marked it with the semi-protection... Let me know what do you think about this move. user:Attilios

you can't sprotect unless you're an admin. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 20:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I love Raphael's work

He is such an inspiration.

Cultural depictions of Raphael

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

oddities

Raphael or Raffaello (April 6, 1483 – April 6, 1520), born in Urbino, Italy, was a master eater and philosipher of the Florentine school in the Italian High Renaissance, celebrated for the perfection and grace of his paintings. He was also called Raffaello Sanzio, Raffaello Santi, Raffaello da Urbino or Rafael Sanzio da Urbino. his most famous saying is "eat or be eatin".

I assume the typo, eater, and ridiculous quote is the result of vandalism. Can someone fix this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.181.193.177 (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

An old painting of Raphael

There´s a very important work of Raphael (considered to be one of the oldest works certainly executed by him) which is not posted in his page:

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagem:Rafaelressurrei%C3%A7%C3%A3o.jpg

Rafaello Sanzio (Italian, 1483-1520) The Resurrection of Christ, 1499/1502 (oil on wood, 52 x 44 cm) Collection: São Paulo Museum of Art (São Paulo, Brazil): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A3o_Paulo_Art_Museum http://www.masp.art.br

Thanks,

Lucas Salles —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucas bsalles (talk • contribs) 17:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Category:Italian Roman Catholics

Please see the discussion in Michelangelo. I find this category meaningless when used with Raphael. What else could he be?CARAVAGGISTI 04:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism edit

While editing serial vandalism, I also removed a well-intentioned 'see also' link to the Pre Raphaelite Brotherhood. This can be re-installed, though I am dubious as to its ultimate relevance in an article on Raphael's life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JNW (talk • contribs) 20:05, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Thank you User:SineBot. JNW 20:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should semi-protect this article to stem the tide of constant vandalism. Almost every other edit seems to be a vandalism revert. Enough is enough. --RossF18 20:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Amen. JNW 21:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Date of Birth and Death

While I think this was already discussed, the article is still inconsistent. The article has both his birth and death in April, while at the end of the article, a point is made about his birth on Good Friday, which took place in March in 1483. While this discrpency may be explained away by the adjustment in the calender, this should be made clear. --RossF18 02:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Reword?

yeah, it's me.... I'd be rewriting this bit.Amandajm 12:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Raphael was born in the small but artistically significant North Italian city of Urbino, where his father Giovanni Santi was court painter to the Duke. In 1491, his mother Màgia died; his father died on August 1, 1494, having already remarried. That's clumsy! Thus orphaned at eleven, Raphael was entrusted to his uncle Bartolomeo, a priest, who subsequently engaged in litigation with his step-mother. He had already shown talent, according to Giorgio Vasari - he tells Try "Vasari, who writes that... that since childhood Raphael had been "a great help to his father". A brilliant self-portrait drawing from his teenage years shows his precocious talent. His father's workshop continued and, probably together with his stepmother, Raphael evidently played a part in managing it from a very early age.
It's a bit early for this - the whole thing will probably all get rewritten. At the moment I'm concentrating on adding the material. Johnbod 16:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Whoa there, calm your horses. Great changes, but it would be nice for you to discuss some of the deleations before hand on the talk page. While your additions are fabulous (albeit in want of some more citations), I would ask for some of the deleations to be discussed in the future since you've sometimes taken out whole paragraphs that multiple editors worked on - which would indicate that at least some discussion would be nice. On the other hand, you did do a great job integrating many of the things you took out into your additions. But still, it's the principle of the thing. Thanks. --RossF18 01:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm still in the middle of changes & refs will be added - most continues to come from Jones & Penny. We shouldn't be reffing an article like this from newspaper articles, boiled down from press releases. As it is being expanded considerably, most of the original will inevitably be lost, especially from the Roman section. I think all I can do is complete my version & then we can discuss - ideally in about a week. Is that ok? Johnbod 01:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I've finished the main work now. Should we dump the infobox for a painting one? It is unfortunately his least attractive but most certain self-portrait. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we should keep the info box as it is as far as his self-potrait. Most, if not all, other pages of artists have their potraits in them. --RossF18 (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
More's the pity! In fact there is a trend to using paintings with infoboxes, especially for unphotogenic artists. See Visual arts project talk passim.Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, I disagree. When people are searching for a particular paiting of Raphael's, they expect to find that paiting in the info box or nothing in the infobox. But, when a person is searching for a artist, painter, writer, or any other person, they expect to find that person's mug, no matter how ugly, in the info box. I think the current trend, if there is such a trend, ill-begotten, begcause who are we to just who is photogenic or not. Photogenic qualities are too subjective to be judged by a handfull of wikipedians who are dedicated enough to keep harping on the point of changing the picture. Besides, what does person's facial features have to do with their life and art work, books, etc. People go to this page to find out about Raphael's life and his paitings, not whether he was one hot cookie and his likeness, no matter if its not perfect (whatever that means), should stay. Now, if there are no potraits of a person, then I understand using one of the paitings instead of an empty infobox, but not otherwise. --RossF18 (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The new potrait of Raphael has been added, but I think the old one is significant enough to be added to the gallery of his potraits in the article. --RossF18 (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Urbino is not a North Italian city

I can't edit this myself because the article is protected, but the article states that Raphael was born in the North Italian city of Urbino. As an Italian I don't see how Urbino is North; I'd rather define it a town in Central Italy. If anyone agrees with me on this (very minor) issue, can anyone correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.208.83.215 (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair point - changed. Johnbod (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism & Protection Issues

I think we need to reinstate that protection on the page. I tried to revert a bot removal of the protection, but I really don't have the authority to do that. So, once again, vandalism resurfesed almost immediately. Would someone protect the page again. Thanks. --RossF18 (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

An IP writes

The text is a little problematical. Raphael like painting pictures of baby Jesus in Mary's (His mother) arms. unsigned; moved down here by Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Rating

How about nominating this for a FA article? It's still rated as a start stub currently. --RossF18 (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Only by the silly "version" projects - the proper projects have it as B. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
How about starting a nomination process for this article being a FA or at least an A. It is no longer a B.--RossF18 (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I suspect there are lots of technical MoS points I'm not strong on. We could do a peer review & see how that goes. Johnbod (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Has anyone noticed theimage at the top of this page is subtitled as a self portrait, but elsewhere on Wikipedia is listed as "Francesco Maria I della Rovere" - I don't know enough about the subject to know which is correct, if either. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moominrachy (talk • contribs) 21:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Of these alternative titles, the self-portrait one is more widely accepted. It is compatible with, if much more stylish than two other self-portraits (one lower on the page, one in a fresco - School of Athens I think.) Adding "probable" or "possible" might be a good idea. This article takes a different view to judge from the abstract. Jones & Penny , 170 say "perhaps a portrait". Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I have difficulty with its assessment as a self-portrait, but my reservations are meaningless if they are based on original research--I hesitate to admit that I have, on occasion, been wrong. But I do think there ought to be a consensus based on the current scholarship; if it's divided or ambivalent, given the presence of the other pictures I would suggest leading with one of the traditionally accepted self-portraits, and move this into the body of the article, with the 'possible' note. JNW (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
As it has been missing since 1945-odd, not much seems to have been written on it since. I can't see where the Francesco Maria della Rovere identification originates - there are other Raphaels also said to be of him. Next time I'm in a good bookshop I'll see what the latest books say. This is "traditionally accepted" - Bellori, Passavant, Berenson etc, the doubts on the subject are more recent I think. Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
You are better versed on this painting, and if tradition supports the attribution, well, I'd take Berenson's word, too. I was unfamiliar with the image, uncomfortable with the stylistic differences between it and the other acknowledged self-portraits, and came up with little of substance to confirm its attribution as a portrait of the artist, via the imperfect science of a Google search, where most of the references to it are as a portrait of a young man. It would be interesting to know if and why modern scholarship has differed with the previous view. I, too, will try to find out more. Thanks for responding. JNW (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually Jones & Penny say the Uffizi panel is probably "a later adaptation of the one likeness which all agree on" - the School of Athens one, vouched for by Vasari (p. 171). But that has Viti/Perugino in it too, so doesn't really work for the lead pic. I've always found the Uffizi image the least satisfying, & the Ashmolean drawing is wonderful. Johnbod (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I've also just found that the image of the missing painting is (like many on the internet) stretched vertically - Jones & Penny p.170 have the original proportions. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

School of Athens

Why isn't there are picture of probably his most famous painting, The School of Athens? ForteKane (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

someone had removed it for some reason - now replaced. But it has it's own article. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is annoying. Is it like this on every page now? This is the second in three articles so far that I found this where I can't work on the article. Maybe if sombody can fix it, I wanted to change the first line so that it says that he's commonly just Raphael to after his birth to death years because that's how I saw it done on the other articles. But its very annoying that I can't do this myself. I'm taking a break!Bolinda (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)B

Apparently there's been quite a lot of IP vandalism. However, it's only semi-protected, so once you've been registered for 4 days, you will be able to edit it. Ty 22:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
But don't make that change - alternative names come before dates. Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Images (2)

Hi, please allow me to explain the changes I have been making.

  • The Athens image: I moved it to the paragraph which discusses the painting, referring to it as a masterpiece. This seems more logical than placing it in the lead, where it is causing formatting issues.
  • The photograph of the mausoleum I moved to the section on his death; this is also more logical than placing it in the References section. I believe MOS deprecates images in References/Notes sections.
  • I slightly moved two images in the Architecture section so that they are next to the paragraphs discussing them; again, this is more logical. Also, it minimizes confusion for anyone using screen readers. WP:ACCESS requires that images be placed within the sections they refer to; to me that means they should also, when there aren't good reasons to the contrary, be placed within the appropriate paragraphs.

I invite discussion on how these are not improvements. — [ roux ] [x] 12:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your changes produced left/right images together with the larger preferences set. The School of Athens is in the Raphael Rooms which are discussed in the lead. Otherwise there is a long way to go before a mature Raphael is seem. The architecture pics are already just next to the relevant text, and you are distorting WP:ACCESS which is only making a point about not placing images above section headers. Also the Sistine Madonna clearly should face into the page, and images should where possible alternate left and right. I hope that explains. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps there's a way to reformat the lead, then? It's completely messed up with the photo there. I'm not distorting ACCESS, I'm extrapolating. The Sistine Madonna, it looks to me, could go on either side as most of the figures in the image are facing forward. As for the architecture pics, no, they aren't next to the relevant text; they're coded a paragraph above and a paragraph below the text they refer to. I see you have no issue with moving the mausoleum picture, though. Is that correct? While images should where possible alternate left and right it's not required. — [ roux ] [x] 14:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the lead School of Athens, what browser are you on? If many people did, I'm sure they would have said by now. Sistine Chapel - er no. On your placing the architecture pictures overlapped for me. You are over-extending WP:Acces - many of the bad layout problems on WP are caused by being fetishistic about getting text and image right next to each other. I do have a problem with moving the mausoleum pic - there is nowhere else for it to go, and it would be lost, which would be a pity. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree that it would be a pity for the mausoleum picture to go. It's lovely, but it creates an enormous column of empty space in the refs section, as well as compressing the columns to relatively narrow widths. Can it not be placed in the Death section? — [ roux ] [x] 14:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't cause any problems on my screen, except the first refs are narrower. Where is the white space? It might go in the reputation bit, but for me there is no room in the death section. What formatting problems do you have in the lead? There may be a way round. Do you know your screen-size & settings? In the lead removing the infobox, which I have no problem with doing, might help. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
FF3, 1024*768. The lead text and infobox display correctly, but below the text is the image, then the TOC, which just looks bizarre (and unlike any other article I've seen on WP). Removing the infobox and right-aligning Athens (&upsizing to 300px?) would absolutely remove any problems.— [ roux ] [x] 15:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Is it better now? Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
It's a very good compromise, I think. Are you satisfied with it? — [ roux ] [x] 15:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine, or better - I never liked the infobox! Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Everybody wins! — [ roux ] [x] 15:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Except that the info box should stay as per every other major article. I never had problems viewing the image and I do not see a reson to make the changes for one user. --RossF18 (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
If the Athens image is such a large problem where it's located, it can always be moved to a gallery or removed all together given that it does have it's own article. Perhaps replacing one other image with the Athens image lower down might be a solution. However, info box needs to stay regardless in my opinion. --RossF18 (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to lose the infobox - the portrait is now larger, and the info was over-simplified for a figure like Raphael. I think it is important to have one of his major works at the top, as that period in his life is not reached for quite a while reading through. There is no requirement for infoboxes in FAs, as has often been said there. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I just think it looks more professional to have info box and I was only suggesting moving the Athens down to placate those with viewing issues. I wasn't suggesting that a box was required or that it provided an adequate summary. Obviously it does not, but it does seem a standardized way of doing it and I personally would prefer to keep it the way it looks right now, both with Athens and infobox. But if there are consistent viewability issues, I lean toward standardization of having an info box as opposed to keeping Athens at the top. --RossF18 (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else have thoughts? Johnbod (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
From previewing the article without the box, I think it looks better without. "As per all other major articles" is no argument, and most of the info is in the opening sentence anyway. Its a fine article though, eitherway. Ceoil sláinte 19:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

engraving

Could someone tell me what the difference (if any)is between woodcuts and engravings?

See the articles! Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

External Links - complete paintings

I suggest to include this site: www.raphaelsanzio.org as it includes most of the artist's paintings and is maintained by the European foundation so is ads free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.210.214 (talk) 06:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Does any one know why Raphael was so famous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.236.141.21 (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Rewording, make the article seem impassive

This article says things like "Raphael's greatest work". It should say "considered by many to be Raphael's greatest work."76.200.158.83 (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Does it say that? I believe all claims are referenced. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

editing

hello can I edit this page to change the scare quotes around "nomad" please. User:Alan Baring Brown

The section is 'Raphael led a "nomadic" life, working in various centres in Northern Italy, but spent a good deal of time in Florence, perhaps from about 1504. However, although there is traditional reference to a "Florentine period" of about 1504-8'. There are scare quotes around 'nomadic' and 'Florentine period'. Generally scare quotes are poor style. If they were in a source, then yes, but then why isn't the whole sentence in quotes (if you see what I mean). User:Alan Baring Brown

Raphael's birth date is incorrect

If you go here [3], it is a book about Raphael Sanzio's life. On page 191 of his book titled, "The Lives and Works of Michael Angelo and Raphael" , its states that he was born on 28 March 1483.

So, we need to take out the information about Raphael deceasing on his birth date. He lived to age 36, not 37. Signed- User:NickOrnstein

The book comes from 1876; more modern sources should be preferred - see the notes for discussion of this issue. Johnbod (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Religion

Does anyone know what religion this guy was cause i need to know. I cant find the answer anywhere! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.64.163 (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Placing of The School of Athens pic

The article needs this at the start. Otherwise the entire layout of the first part of the article needs changing. At present it is the only mature and typical Raphael work in the first 4 screens (on my machine). The article needs a mature work much earlier on. The alternative might be to remove the infobox and put the School in the lead spot, or below the self-portrait, but I think many would object to that. Other than being unusual, is there an actual problem with the current placement, which has been in place for 2 years with no other objections? Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think there is a problem with the image placement. While I appreciate that you have made a huge and well written contribution to this article, the image placment pushes the table of contents into the centre of the screen in a most unattractive way. I general, I like the layout you have used, grouping works into the periods of Raphael's life and development as an artist, so I'm quite surprised by the assertion that "The article needs a mature work much earlier on"; do we really need the image in the lede at all? In the same way the manual of style says we should avoid squashing text between images placed left and right, I think the same thought applies in this case; to squashing the table of contents between image and the infobox. It is true the image doesn't have to be moved to the place I moved it to, but if you think it is essential this image be placed near the beginning of the article, how about placing it elsewhere, say on the right below the infobox? Astronaut (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
There isn't room, without leaving a big white gap, which would be worse. The lead should certainly have a typical image in it, given its length. This is important precisely because of the chronological sequence the rest of the article follows. I still don't actually see the problem - is the TOC actually "squeezed" on your screen, or is the layout just unfamiliar? I think the only way to do it is to remove the infobox altogether. Johnbod (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not the only one who uses a browser in a smaller window and other readers may use a large text size, but that is beside the point. The unfamiliar layout is simply unattractive on the screen. To suggest removing the infobox just to keep this image in the lede is a ridiculous idea; it is obvious that the best thing to do is move the image. Take a look at the articles on both Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci, they both manage to have longish lede sections with infoboxes and neither needs an additional image on the left in the lede section. Astronaut (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
With Michelangelo you get major works by 3 screens down, which is just about ok, altyhough I wouldn't do it like that myself. The Leonardo article is exactly what needs to be avoided here. This article has had over over 2 million hits while the image has been this way, and yours is the first complaint. Removing the infobox would be the best compromise, but leaving things as they are is the best solution. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
In fact, I'm not the first to 'complain' about this. The very first comment on this talk page said the image placement was 'odd' less than 2 weeks after you placed the image there. No one bothered to reply to that comment - I note you were heavily involved with the peer review around that time, so maybe it slipped your attention. Just 2 weeks later, another comment made a similar observation after you reverted User:Roux's edits. In the subsequent discussion, User:RossF18 also thought this image should be moved. Please don't presume that because you have resisted attempts to move this image, that consensus says it should remain where it is. Astronaut (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
How about like this? The TOC is forced at the left, the Athens image is centred, and a break is forced at the end. It looks OK to me at most window widths, except those around 800px wide, where the image and infobox overlap. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
PS, I think the caption needs to state more explicitly what's so important about that work that it needs to be in the lead, e.g. that it demonstrates his mature phase. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with that layout & will add to the caption - the infobox used to give it, pretty misleadingly, as his only "works". Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You want want to check that in some older browsers, I have this vague memory that if you have left/center/right items, some browsers tend to render that as though the element clears the floating elements. Not sure how common that problem is. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh. You're right, it looks crap in IE6 (still used by 21%), where any part of the infobox which is line with the centre image is blanked. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
And looks damn poor in IE8 as well. TBH, I see nothing wrong with moving some images slightly further down to get this layout (which seems OK in IE8). Astronaut (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I checked with the other browsers I had access to: Seen in Internet Explorer 6 there seems to be a problem like I saw in IE8. It is better, and probably as intended, in Firefox 3.0 and SeaMonkey 1.1.?. Considering Internet Explorer's large share of the browser market, it is a bad idea to leave it as it is. So, since there appeared to be no objection, I've gone ahead and moved the images as I described immediately above. Astronaut (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that looks really messy, & it would be better as it was in the first place. Anyone agree? Or replace the School of Athens in the infobox, or remove the infobox altogether? The portrait is not very good & not from life, but we don't have another adult portrait at the moment. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't agree. I am baffled why you think it is "really messy" and would appreciate an explanation of what you think is wrong with the layout or how it conflicts with the guidelines in the manual of style. It is a common convention that biographical articles have an image of the person in the infobox rather than the work they are noted for (see the Michelangelo and Da Vinci article for examples of this) and, as I've said before, removing the infobox is a ridiculous idea. Astronaut (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Give me the same on why the original layout was such a big problem. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style for art infoboxes; these are very often removed for just this reason - that they obstruct the more important function of showing a major work as lead pic. It is not a "ridiculous idea" at all, and you are getting rather tiresome on this. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The original layout was a problem because placing the image on the left forces the table of contents into the centre of the page between the image and the infobox. No only did this not look good on the screen, but at narrower window widths the table of contents is actually squashed. Placing the image in the centre, as proposed by AlmostReadytoFly, might have been OK if it worked in Internet Explorer, but having the centred image overlapping the infobox for possibly 60% of readers is unacceptable; and you would still have a problem at narrower window widths. Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style, I could see nothing that said infoboxes should be removed, just that "conflict for space between the need to illustrate visual arts articles and the use of infoboxes. This is decided on a case-by-case basis." So, why exactly is the current layout "really messy"?
If you think I am being tiresome, maybe you would prefer to listen to someone else's opinion. I am happy to open this up to a third opinion or request for comment discussion. Astronaut (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
As of this writing, the layout looks fine as it is. It would be nice for there to be a way to put Athens to the right of the table of contents so that it's in between the Info box and the table of context. However, I do not know of a way to do this, as wiki wants either to put it on the left via putting the picture at the top of that paragraph or at the bottom of the info box. Perhaps we need to petition wikipedia programs to institutue a change. Maybe it'll be in place for the beta. --RossF18 (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
You can do that, but it causes problems in some browsers - see above & 3) below. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary

See above for issues

Comments:

  • My browser is Safari & display is smallish. Here are the ones that aren't working: #1 crushes the TOC to 1 3/4" width, and leaves a lot of white space at sides. #3 is an unattractive layout & the jpg overlaps the text. #4 is functional but the School of Athens is an awkward appendage to the infobox.

Better: #2 looks fine; I don't mind scrolling to get to the major works, although I suspect it makes pedagogical sense to put one of them near the top. #5 is very good. #6 seems best as it supplies all the expected elements & fills the space well. Losing the infobox is no loss. Ewulp (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

  • 3 is obviously out. I think displacing the TOC (1) is ugly and removing the infobox (5, 6) is a loss. Johnbod thinks (and I defer to his knowledge) that the Athens image is necessary. So I suggest 4, but also fixing the images below to the same width as the infobox - to make them less awkward - and possibly moving the infobox up beside the otheruses templates. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
That's absolutely fine with me if it works on most browsers/screens. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I would still go with #4 as most acceptable to most editors. Yes, I know that each editor here has their own favorite, but key is what can everyone be satisfied with and I think that's number 4. I would personally also take number 3 but number 3 is odd in that I would prefer the School of Athens in the middle of that white space, not pushed up against the info box. As far as info box itself, I think the convention is that info box be present, per Leonardo's page. If you are suggesting that info box be done away with (favorite in that case be #6), then your argument would have to be to do away with all info boxes in all of articles involving artists. If that's your argument, that's fine, but is that what you're arguing? Because I just don't think Rafael's article should be the only major painter article without an info box.--RossF18 (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how many times you have said that on this page, but my response is still the same. See above, the VA MOS etc. Most artist FAs don't have infoboxes: Caspar David Friedrich, John Michael Wright, John Vanbrugh (architect), Robert Peake the Elder. Of the big names in the old masters: Hans Holbein the Younger, Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Nicolas Poussin, & Giovanni Battista Tiepolo don't have them, & no doubt many others. Titian still has one, although much of the information on it is still questionable, and used to be wrong, leading to a row in the UK Parliament - see the article. It has been removed many times, but there are people (not the article editors) who keep re-adding it without discussion, because they wrongly seem to think there is some rule that you have to have one. There isn't. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
First, relax. I wasn't the one to start this discussion up again. And if something that has been discussed a hundred times is discussed again, well, don't get too excited if the same points are once again brought up. Second, in that case, 6 is fine as most painters mentioned by you still have their own portraits up on top, not another paiting. --RossF18 (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I still think the infobox is quite important to readers, even if there is no rule that says you have to have one. Johnbod's concerns about infoboxes in general seems to be that they can mislead readers if they contain inaccurate or questionable information (apologies if I am wrong in that assessment). Everyone has the ability to correct the information in an infobox (including reverting vandalism carried out by politicians), or we can simply leave information out if it is not known. Even uncertain dates can be easily handled in an acceptable manner, like in the infobox for Titian. However, if the consensus is that the infobox absolutely must go in order to accommodate the School of Athens image, then #6 would be an acceptable compromise in my opinion. Astronaut (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
And while Johnbod is correct to point out that there is no rule that there should be infoboxes, there is also equally no rule that there should be no infoboxes. I think they're helpful too in giving the page more encyclopedic view. But again, if it's that big of a deal for Johnbod, 6 is fine. --RossF18 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Ham's version 7 looks fine to me in Firefox 3.0 (where it looks like my attempt) and in IE6 (where the Athens image drops below the TOC). Of all the options, it's my favourite. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I should say that I designed it on Google Chrome, so that's three browsers. Ham 14:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Also fine in FF3.6 and IE8, and tolerable in Opera with small resolution [4] AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC).
FWIW I'm seeing overlap of lower 10% of infobox by The School of Athens in #7 (in Safari). Ewulp (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Raphael mentioned in modern works

I saw on a previous post about No Trivia and just wanted to ask why?, or maybe add a bit about Raphael in modern or pop culture. Raphael is a character known as 'Rafe' in the Cassandra Palmer novel series written by Karen Chance.

MJB 21:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melanie beswick (talk • contribs)

These sections are random and irrelevant, and tend to grow with minutea. The hope is that editors are more focused on the substance of Raphael's life and work, rather than later namechecks and shout-outs. Ceoil sláinte 21:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox for Raphael

Why does the famous artists like Leonardo and Rembrandt have artist infobox but Raphael one of the famous old masters has no infobox at all. If its about his birthdate we could list both besides for example the artist Vermeer whose birthdate is uncertain has an infobox. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but agree. However, the whole issue of the lede section was discussed last month, including whether or not an infobox was important. Consensus seems to indicate having the "The School of Athens" image in the lede is more important than the infobox. Astronaut (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
But what use is the infobox here in fact? Actually the version by User:Rizalninoynapoleon was acceptable to me, but concerns previously have been about people on different browsers, with small screens etc, & I suspect there are problems there. But I reject, as does WP:VAMOS, the presumption that all artist articles should have an infobox as default. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Raphael is an important artist that needs an infobox. We can refer the matter to the administrators on the other browsers. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
As no comments have been made, the infobox will be placed. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
No comments have been made because the subject has been exhaustively discussed before. Don't be surprised if it doesn't last. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't last Johnbod, because you keep on reverting any attempt at change, this time within two minutes of leaving the above comment. Consensus cannot be met if every attempt at change is quickly reverted by you. Honestly, just what is wrong with the infobox reintroduced by Rizalninoynapoleon, and why is it SO very important the School of Athens image is prominently placed in the lede (I don't think we ever to the bottom of that when we discussed it previously) - the Leonardo da Vinci article for example manages very well with a brief mention of both the Mona Lisa and The Last Supper as being his most famous works, but with images of both much further down the article. Astronaut (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, let me explain this AGAIN one last time. It is important that a mature work of Raphael is shown at the start of the article so that people do not have read down three screens to see what all the fuss is about. The lede summarizes the highlights of his career & should be illustrated to match. Now can you tell me why it is SO very important to have an infobox, without referring to other articles (but feel free to refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (visual arts) and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)? For further details see above - we have been through all of these points before - "Raphael is an important artist that needs an infobox" WRONG - see above. And so on. Johnbod (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but all I have is the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and the fact that the need for a mature work at the start seems unimportant in other articles. Even so, it's probably a better idea than insisting I support the desire for an infobox using only the advice offered in WP:VAMOS, a guideline which Johnbod had a very large hand in writing. Astronaut (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The infobox is not required and in this case it is not advisable to add it. Several previous long standing discussions have established that the infobox in most cases is a dumbing down of the subject and is only an option at best. Consensus at this article is against the use of an infobox...Modernist (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is well equipped to provide information by reliance on its policy: :” Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. :”Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.” Consensus is declared by Modernist: “Consensus at this article is against the use of an infobox...Modernist (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC).” Arguing is promised to be futile and :” Don't be surprised if it doesn't last.” Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC). “ Arguing is futile if there is no established rule as to infobox inline citations. On the other hand the data used in the infobox is taken from the article which required inline citations. Therefore there is no need for consensus since it is in full compliance with the rules of Wikipedia. If you need you can ask for arbitration on this issue. (Salmon1 (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)).
This is hardly an appropriate subject for arbitration! The issue is nothing much to do with the information in the infobox, but the implications it has for the design and layout of the article, an issue on which consensus is relevant, as are the opinions of the major contributors to the page. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Arbitration is the last resort when all other resources have been tried, which they clearly have not been. This is still at the primary stage of discussion between editors. Please see WP:DR. NPOV is irrelevant. WP:MOS is more to the point. Ty 17:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The main objection to the infobox is that it precludes a major work in the WP:LEAD. There should be a way of accommodating both requirements. As the lead section should be a summary of the main content of the article, it would seem to follow there should be a summary not only of the textual but also of the visual content, i.e. the images of the artwork, by representing them also in the lead. One solution is a major image in the infobox, but as the box is normally for an image of the subject of the biography, perhaps inclusion of a thumbnail in the lead would do the trick, or else a table at the end of the lead which could include several images showing the stages of his work. See here for some examples of tables. Something like table 3 might do the job. Ty 17:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You will see from a section or two up that a range of solutions have been tried (I was perfectly happy with at least one containing an infobox) and we had such a solution for a long time, but problemsd were raised with the effect using specific browsers. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
We can't cater for every browser and screen resolution (when I last found it, there was an MOS guide that 800 x 600 res should be catered for). Is there any guidance for browsers? Anyway, I have made a different suggestion that the lead should have a survey of images as a summary of article content, not just one picture. Ty 17:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a reminder that the version I proposed, combining an infobox and a thumbnail of the School of Athens, apparently works fine on various versions of Internet Explorer, Firefox and Google Chrome, is "tolerable" in Opera and a little bit off in Safari. As Ty said above, "we can't cater for every browser and screen resolution". If it had been implemented by a disinterested editor months ago, we could have averted this overlong discussion. I am tempted to be bold unless there are new objections. Ham 19:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Firefox and on 800 x 600 screen, it obscures the infobox below "training". Ty 19:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Right; that wasn't said above. So where would your table of images be in relation to the other elements? Ham 19:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC) (Edit: Here's a new attempt to incorporate both the infobox and the School of Athens. How does it look on 800 x 600? Ham 19:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC))
I guess a good place for the table would be after the text in the lead. It has never, to my knowledge, been done before, but seems a logical inclusion. Ty 20:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Or the infobox could be shortened - that stuff under the picture could all go into a note for a start. NB the latest changes had a different, much inferior, version of the infobox info. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm against the TOC at top left. It's ugly and confusing. It refers to material after the lead.Ty 20:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion at User:Tyrenius/R. The image position can be changed. It works at 800 x 600 and 1024 x 768 on firefox. Ty 20:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok by me, if unusual. No doubt someone will object .... Maybe if we just add 400 words to the lead we won't have any issue.... Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I did think the lead was a little on the short side, so an expansion would give more room to adjust the image. Shortening the image caption (removed text could be added to the lead) and, as you suggested, putting some of the infobox image description in a note, would ease up a bit of space. Ty 21:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I've changed to my suggested version,[5] pending further discussion. Ty 12:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Thanks. I commented there "Prone to vandalism (mostly seasonal when Art History 101 reaches him); a pretty stable article with few useful edits so probably a good candidate. On several reviewers' watchlists. " Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. I've got it watchlisted. Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Watchlisted. I've always assumed that this, like the articles on his colleagues, has been vulnerable to young fans of Raphael (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles). JNW (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Edit semi-protected}} At first I'd like to apologize for any mistakes in posting these new entries to the Raphael-page, but my English is not native and so it is hard for me to go through all the explanations (but I've already added the books mentioned below to the german Wikipedia-Raffael-section and that has been okay).

So please would anybody be so kind and add the following books about Raphael to the "Further Reading"-section for me?

- Juergen M. Lehmann: Raphael - The Holy Family with the Lamb of 1504, The Original and its Variants (Studio Exhibition in the Museum Fridericianum Kassel, 5th Nov. 1995 to 21st Jan. 1996, extended to 3rd March 1996), ISBN 3-9804608-2-7
- Juergen M. Lehmann: Raffael - Die Heilige Familie mit dem Lamm von 1504, Das Original und seine Varianten (Studio-Ausstellung Museum Fridericianum Kassel, 05.11.1995 bis 21.01.1996, verlaengert bis 03.03.1996), ISBN 3-9804608-1-9
- Juerg Meyer zur Capellen: Raphael in Florence. London 1996. Hardback, Azimuth Editions London, 1996; ISBN 1-898592-08-X
- Juerg Meyer zur Capellen: Raffael in Florenz. Germany, December 1996. Hardback, publisher: Hirmer-Verlag, Germany; ISBN 3-7774-6980-7
- Juerg Meyer zur Capellen: Raphael - The Paintings. Volume I: The Beginnings in Umbria and Florence ca. 1500-1508. Publisher: Arcos, Landshut 2001, ISBN 3-935339-00-3
- Juerg Meyer zur Capellen: Raphael - The Paintings. Volume II: The Roman Religious Paintings, ca. 1508-1520. Publisher: Arcos, Landshut 2005, ISBN 3-935339-21-6
- Juerg Meyer zur Capellen: Raphael - The Paintings. Volume III: The Roman Portraits, ca. 1508-1520. Publisher: Arcos, Landshut 2008, ISBN 978-3-935339-30-5 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum
(in process: Raphael - The Paintings. Volume IV: The Wall Paintings, and planned: Raphael - The Paintings. Volume V: The Tapestries both by Juerg Meyer zur Capellen)
- Pierluigi De Vecchi: Raphael. Publisher: Abbeville Press, September 1, 2002; ISBN 978-0789207708
- Pierluigi De Vecchi: Raffael. Hirmer Verlag, Munich 2002; ISBN 978-3-7774-9500-2
- Juerg Meyer zur Capellen: Raffael. Taschenbuch, german language, publisher: Beck Verlag, Munich 2010; ISBN 978-3-406-60091-3
Note (not for the Raphael-entry, only an explanation to the editors' team): The 5 volumes from Juerg Meyer zur Capellen are the latest catalogue raisonné like "Luitpold Dussler's: Raphael - A Critical Catalogue of his Pictures, Wall-Paintings and Tapestries" is one. The first 3 volumes are available already and the 4th one is in process right now. Prof. Juerg Meyer zur Capellen is also responsible for the Raffael Projekt together with Prof. Dr. Stefan Kummer, you'll find an english web-site right here: http://www.raffael-projekt.com; There are 2 books of Prof. Meyer zur Capellen, that are not in english, but these are easy to identify since the name "Raphael" is spelled "Raffael" in the german works and I don't know if these should appear on the english Wikipedia at all. One of the books from Juergen M. Lehmann is a german version as well as one of Pierluigi De Vecchi's works. I've arranged the listing of the books by date of appearance, not by the author. Thanks a lot in advance Hwp0815 13:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: Thanks, but you've suggested adding a large number of extra sources to an already-large Further reading section. As described at Wikipedia:Layout#Further reading, these sections should be limited, and are not intended to serve as a directory. Perhaps you could suggest the half-dozen or so best sources from the above list and from those already listed? There's a proposed guideline for deciding which are the best sources to include in Further reading at Wikipedia:Further reading. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Edit semi-protected}} Thanks a lot for your explanations, I've thought it over and discovered a mistake by the way in this line: * Raphael: A Critical Catalogue of His Paintings; Jürg Meyer zur Capellen, Stefan B. Polter, Arcos, 2001-2008... This author didn't write "a critical catalogue" (for the correct title see below), his catalogue raisonné is split into 5 volumes, 3 are available already, the 4th will appear pretty soon and Nr. 5 is planned, I'd suggest the following entries in Further Reading:

<start of section> 

* Raphael; John Pope-Hennessy, New York University Press, 1970, ISBN 0-8147-0476-X;
* The standard source of biographical information is now: V. Golzio, Raffaello nei documenti nelle testimonianze dei contemporanei e
nella letturatura del suo secolo, Vatican City and Westmead, 1971;
* Raphael - A Critical Catalogue of his Pictures, Wall-Paintings and Tapestries, catalogue raisonné by Luitpold Dussler published in
the United States by Phaidon Publishers, Inc., 1971, ISBN 0-7148-1469-5 (out of print, but there is an online version here);
* Raphael: From Urbino to Rome; Hugo Chapman, Tom Henry, Carol Plazzotta, Arnold Nesselrath, Nicholas Penny, National Gallery
Publications Limited, 2004, ISBN 1-85709-999-0 (exhibition catalogue);
* The Cambridge Companion to Raphael, Marcia B. Hall, Cambridge University Press, 2005, ISBN 0-521-80809-X;
* Raphael: Raphael - The Paintings Volumes I-V; Jürg Meyer zur Capellen, Stefan B. Polter, Arcos, 2001-2008, a new catalogue raisonné in
five volumes, vol. IV & V still being published.
Vol. I: The Beginnings in Umbria and Florence ca. 1500-1508, ISBN 3-935339-00-3, Vol. II: The Roman Religious Paintings, ca. 1508-1520,
ISBN 3-935339-21-6, Vol. III: The Roman Portraits, ca. 1508-1520, ISBN 978-3-935339-30-5 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum, Vol. IV: The Wall Paintings (in process,
almost finished), Vol. V: The Tapestries (planned).

<end of section>

The exhibition catalogue "Raphael: From Urbino to Rome; Hugo Chapman, Tom Henry, Carol Plazzotta..." is not as important as the other aforementioned books and you could leave it away, if you like so. But Jürg Meyer zur Capellen should appear at least with the 5-volume-oeuvre, since this is the latest and widest work and it is written in english. Furthermore you could replace the umlaut "ü" with "ue", because this is just what it means and wouldn't confuse readers, who only speak english.

Thanks a lot for your help and your interest, soon I will meet somebody to provide me a (short) list of the most important books regarding Raphael; once I have it, I'll put it at this talk page, and then you'll decide to use it or not. Also there is a link at the book "Raphael - A Critical Catalogue of his Pictures, Wall-Paintings and Tapestries, catalogue raisonné by Luitpold Dussler published in the United States by Phaidon Publishers, Inc., 1971, ISBN 0-7148-1469-5 (out of print, but there is an online version here)", that leads to the online version of it and I think this link should remain there.

Hwp0815 12:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Unlike the German WP, we do not aim to provide complete bibliographies, and I'm not sure how many WP readers really need to go straight from our article to a 5-vol full catalogue; probably not many. A single unified mention of the Capellen is enough, especially as it is incomplete. Anyone who wants to pursue it can easily find the individual volumes. The recent Pier Luigi De Vecchi & Bette Talvacchia monographs are probably more appropriate for a general readership, and the populist Raphael Trail: The Secret History of One of the World's Most Precious Works of Art by Joanna Pitman, which I think I will now include as I see you can get it on UK Amazon for £0.01 + p&p, which is more than can be said for Capellen. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


{{Edit semi-protected}} That's okay for me, thanks for this information; the most important thing was to remove "A Critical Catalogue of His Paintings; Jürg Meyer zur Capellen, Stefan B. Polter...", anyway, because as mentioned before, this book does not exist. Thanks for your time and best regards Hwp0815 16:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect painting of Saint George and the Dragon

If I'm not mistaken, the painting of "Saint George and the Dragon" depicted on this page isn't the one created by Rafael. While it does appear to be the same subject matter, I believe that it was created by someone else. The style isn't the same as his other work shown and the National Gallery of Art displays a different Saint George and the Dragon attributed to Rafael. Thank you. 184.99.88.5 (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

There are 2, both by Raphael, both on the template. Johnbod (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed excess of images

I removed the abnormal number of images: the strength (in my opinion) of Wikipedia compared to Britannica is that we have far more detail in separate articles for his paintings, so images can be seen there. If one wants to see galleries, there's plenty of them at Commons. I also added a precise reference to Palazzo Caprini, which was ignored by the previous editors, and removed some POV terms. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Also another blunder: Via Giulia is of course not in Borgo, since it's on the other side of Tiber River! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Stop vandalizing articles. Leave this article alone. The galleries were fine. Stop deleting them...Modernist (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 March 2012

jesus is his father 115.124.2.194 (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Celestra (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand note 48

Note 48 talks about the "direct transmission of training" and mentions Brian Eno. But I don't understand what it's relaying to me. That Eno was trained in the same way Raphael trained members of his workshop? --bodnotbod (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No. Brian Eno was trained/taught by somebody who was trained by somebody (repeat several times) .... who was trained by somebody who was trained by Raphael. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


"sliver" is misspelled

In the mention of "metal point" I think it really ought to be "silver" but, alas, the article is locked so someone higher up will need to change it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14976.50 (talk • contribs) 00:25, October 14, 2012 (UTC)

Done! Ewulp (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

lower contrast for main portrait of raphael

Can someone higher up than me please change the main portrait of Raphael. Exactly the same work would be fine, but its contrast at the moment is so high it looks kind of tacky!

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.37.155 (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Baldassare Castiglione misspelled in Portrait of "Balthazar" Castiglione

Just wanted to point this out. 75.68.134.84 (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a standard & legitimate anglicization, not a mispelling, but now changed. Johnbod (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

using titles of UK amazon bestseller list to makes judgement about Raphael's current reputation

Citation is to alleged titles of 'amazon UK's "Renaissance" top 25 bestsellers list'. Which list is extremely unreliable and subjective- Linked reference list, has more than 25 books (default 1st page has 20, why limit it to 25? to get right numbers to fit claims made?). It is for UK amazon only. It includes books with even flimsy connections with word 'Renaissance' (as of this date, it includes "Marc Davis: Walt Disney's Renaissance Man' at No.9). It is frequently changed with book sales. Etc.. etc..

Unless better support can be found, I propose removal of the sentence clause ("but it would seem he has since been overtaken by Michelangelo and Leonardo in this respect.") that is supported by this faulty citation. 123.231.85.4 (talk) 05:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The fundamental point is an important one, & I think true. I don't see why the list is either unreliable or subjective, taken for what it is. Actually it is mostly pretty stable, though I see that you have to go to #57 to find anything on Raphael at the moment, much worse than it used to be. But RS on the relative popularity of old masters are hard to find so I think a statistical approach, even if crude, justified. The passage has been there for about 8 years, and I think you are the first to complain. One can get some postcard stats from museums, but these are actually less use for such a comparison. Johnbod (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Raphael. 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) 06:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2017

Can I edit this Chardhunt (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
What do you want to do? Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I think there's a typo in paragraph 6 of the Architecture subsection of the Roman Period section: "a gandiloquent feature unprecedented in private palace design" should probably have "Grandiloquent" instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.253.30 (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Overview Is Very Complex

I think that the overview and background section needs to be cleaned up. It goes into too much detail for that section and covers things that should be covered in sub-headings. For people who just need a quick reference or a little bit of information it is far too detailed and complex. I believe that it should give a brief overview of his life instead of delving into things that should be covered later, like his parents.

Well I've added a para to the lead. The background section is not an "overview". Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Notable Work Section

Shouldn't the "Notable work" part contain a few selected works, and not just a link to a list of everything he has created? I'm no expert on what his most "notable" works would be, but I think at least just putting The School of Athens would be more helpful to most people rather than having them look at a huge list and have them try to figure out which works are famous and which are not. Ryzcheese (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure. In my mind its hard to separate notability between important vs famous works by Raphael. I suspect that such a list would surely include The Marriage of the Virgin, The School of Athens, Sistine Madonna and Transfiguration, with perhaps some combination of Portrait of Pope Julius II, Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione or Portrait of Leo X (Raphael)... any thoughts Johnbod? Aza24 (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes. There isn't actually a "Notable work" section - List of paintings by Raphael has been split off for years. The lead has (with links) "Many of his works are found in the Vatican Palace, where the frescoed Raphael Rooms were the central, and the largest, work of his career. The best known work is The School of Athens in the Vatican Stanza della Segnatura." Otherwise, the ones illustrated (including I think all you mention) give a good idea of at least the best known - which is sometimes rather an accident depending on the museum they ended up in. Or one could always try reading the text .... Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh oops, I did not see that the OP's comment was from 2018. My comment was referring to specifically the "Notable work" in the infobox since at the moment its simply a link to the list. Aza24 (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, right! Presumably so was his. Before about 2015 that field was just omitted. I don't like them, & often they are just terrible choices, plus they make the infobox even longer. You only want a few: I'd say Raphael Rooms, Sistine Madonna and Transfiguration? Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Those three seems like safe bets, I've added them. I feel like a portrait should be included but between Julius, Leo and Baldassare none seem to stand out as the obvious choice. Aza24 (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Why are you still translating his name?

I am Italian, just like Raffaello. Can you imagine we calling Thomas Gainsborough something like Tommaso Ganesboro? That's awful. We used to translate foreign names in Italian during the Fascist era; it's disrespectful that you keep translating artists' names in 2022. Just think about it. AleTrixy (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It's true! In fact, Socrate, Cartesio and Copernico are spinning in their graves too! :-) Alex2006 (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2022

Should we change this short description to "Italian painter and architect (1483–1520)" based on Wikidata, by inclusion of dates if needed. 112.204.220.67 (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I've no problem with that, although short descriptions don't usually include dates in my experience. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Johnbod: It's more better with dates if lifetime is most important, not just a weird century construction. 112.204.220.67 (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done, per WP:SDDATES. Ham II (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

My defence of Representations in the Arts and Literature

I cannot see you have any argument to say my edit is WP:UNDUE. Mentions in art and literature are a normal addition to information on any subject and the a section to include them is hardly unusual. The entries I included are from the most widely read poet of her day and they are in what were then popular publications that are easily accessible on the internet today. She was an innovator, who wrote original poetry in her own unique style, all attributes that are highly valued in today's world. In spite of almost two centuries of misogyny (as is common with female authors) and, until recently, a complete lack of scholarship (other than Sarah Sheppard, 1841) she is today quite popular on poetry websites and is at least in the top 200 poets. Ignorance is not a reason for quoting UNDUE and surely it is not the aim of wikipedia, any more than misogyny. Esme Shepherd (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Raphael/Archive_1&oldid=1249155514"