Jump to content

Talk:Renaissance/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Doubtfull claims in introduction section

Early examples were the development of perspective in oil painting and the recycled knowledge of how to make concrete - perspective was developed theoretically much earlier and used both in fresco and tempera paintings, so there is nothing about "early example" in oil painting.

Other major centres were northern Italian city-states such as Venice, Genoa .... Genoa was in decline at the time, there is no any famous persons or artworks of Renaissance which are associated with city. It makes much more sense to emphasize Siena (Sienese school, though in decline, but still more important than Genovese), Padova (art of Giotto, Mantegna, Donatello), Mantova (art of Mantegna and Giulio Romano, court of Gonzaga), Ferrara (school of Ferrara. court of Este), Parma (art of Correggio and Parmigianino), and even Vicenza (art of Andrea Palladio).

Black Death/Plague section

Children were hit the hardest because many diseases such as typhus and syphilis target the immune system.... According to general opinion syphilis was carried to Europe from the Americas with Columbus expeditions, so what it has to do with a plague of year 1348? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SubRE (talk • contribs) 21:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Neo-renaissance

Tacna Cathedral

Should we add a section on neo-renaissance? --NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2014

I would like to edit the black death section, as well as correcting the errors throughout AlexR24 (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Why "the"?

Why is there the definite article in the title? This is not the case for, say, Age of Enlightenment, etc, and Renaissance redirects to this article, so there obviously are not any disambiguation issues. It's also discouraged in WP:DEFINITE: "Avoid definite and indefinite articles". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a good question. Barjimoa (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

End of Middle ages

This article is of good reading status. If You good contributors find my changes dislikable, or wrong even, then I'm sorry. However given the article's high status, I would like to explain my rather small changes to its lead.
By the beginning of the 15th Century [i.o.w. from year 1400] Europe was still in the Middle Ages (and was in the phase from recovering to adjusting itself from the Black Death, which between 1347 and 1353 had reduced the European population by a third, locally even worse) Saying the Renaissance began in Italy already in the latest part of 14th Century, isn't quite correct I believe. Doubtlessly the Renaissance did start in today's Italy, but more precisely, in some of the cities north of the Papal states (Rome and belt across the "Italian boot", no offence). In Florence painting from a perspective was something never seen anywhere before. This includes civilizations as the East-Asians, Indian, Arabian, Mexican and in the Andes. And also including old Egypt, Greece and Rome. Sculptures only were made in "3D". And older European portraits and other paintings were also "flat", until the 1420's or 1430's in Florence. (which eventually also gave renewed the interest of geometry and mathematics in general)
Also, how to make concrete was an building art which had been forgotten for centuries. But became reinvented around the same time. These are examples of the beginning of something new. And soon followed inventions or better use of earlier inventions (like the compass), the art of printing, astronomy (it was known the Earth was spherical, but Europeans still was afraid of leaving the Mediterranean Sea or coastlines. There had in any case been no European explorers since the Vikings around 1450. But during the last quarter of the 15th Century the Spanish-Portuguese Kingdoms began to encourage exploring of world's coast lines. (Later followed by the Dutch , English and other Europeans)
I think it fair to say that the Renaissance spred and increased gradualy during the 50 year period of (approximate) 1425 to 1475. Not much sooner than around 1425. And the entire process began in cities as Florence, Bologna, Genua and Venice. A phrase like "Late medieval" ,is in my mind the time between the long aftermath of the Black Death (until around 1375) and 1475. (Although earlier in mentioned parts) Boeing720 (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

An error on the page

This really isn't much of an issue, but I wonder why the picture that was intended to be shown in the subsection "Art" (Michelangelo's grave) is, well, not shown. Is this because no picture corresponding to it has been uploaded? I tried editing it, but couldn't. Knaveknight (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2015

dear wikipedia person,

i need an access for the scorces on 'the renaissance' page. i need it for my history essay. i could lose my scolarship by this. i need it before monday by tusday because my whole life is depending on it and i need to make a change in my life.

regards, Greenflame123

 Not done {{Edit semi-protected}} is used for requesting changes to a protected article. Access to the references to an article is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 00:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2015

186.1.11.58 (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)The renaissance time the people was pervert and only shows their pirulin

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2015

Please replace Vasari’s work Vite de' più eccellenti architetti, pittori, et scultori Italiani with the correct (Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects) Le Vite de' più eccellenti pittori, scultori, e architettori. Ignoto (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Article's name

Why is this article named "The Renaissance" instead of "Renaissance"? I'm proposing to move it. --Checco (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Having the The isn't standard practice, consider Middle Ages, Industrial Revolution. - SimonP (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, the article was moved from "Renaissance" to "The Renaissance" without any debate (see also here). While we are at it, let me also explain why I disagree with this edit by 115ash: as the article's first image, Michelangelo's David, which by the way is in Florence, is more meaningful than a panorama of Florence, as well as Michelangelo is more notable than Brunelleschi. I'm going to revert the edit. --Checco (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It is better to remove the article. Barjimoa (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree too about both issues. Alex2006 (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I've made the change. - SimonP (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Organization of topic

Rather than organize this geographically it would make more sense to organize chronologically or by style. Although Italy and particularly Florence have a special significance, listings for other regions seem unnecessary. See, for example, how Britannica does it: http://www.britannica.com/event/Renaissance Also, History.com has a well-organized treatment of the topic: http://www.history.com/topics/renaissance-art 24.236.70.18 (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Ak843 (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Opening image

The article is not about notability not about the outstanding contributions of great artists. I believe that the statue must not be on the top of the article. We could some other paintings. --115ash→(☏) 13:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think that we have enough artworks to put at the top of the article (starting with the ominous Mona Lisa), but why do you dislike David? Alex2006 (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
That image is unacceptable. What's wrong with the birthplace of the Renaissance? I don't know why Checco made a comparison between Filippo and Michelangelo. Did I add the Cathedral? No, just the city.--115ash→(☏) 09:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Why unacceptable? Alex2006 (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
As everyone know that Wikipedia is not censored, still nudity doesn't look nice on the of the article. There are better images that can be replaced. What's wrong with the birthplace of the Renaissance? Again, that was a view of Florence, not only the Cathedral. --115ash→(☏) 15:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
You answered by yourself: Wikipedia is not censored. This means that nudity cannot play any role in the judgement about the opportunity to use a picture in the lead. Alex2006 (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but there many better images that we can include. I find it as inappropriate. Again, what's wrong with the image of Florence? There many much finer sculptors that we can include.--115ash→(☏) 10:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear ash, you are refusing to get the point. I am asking you since a week: why is it inappropriate? The only reason which you gave until now, is that David is nude, and this for Wikipedia is not a valid reason. "There are better images", "what is wrong with Florence", and so on, is only Smalltalk. You should give valid, compelling reasons to change this image, which represents what is considered one of the most remarkable masterpieces of world art, not nudity. Alex2006 (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Why can't we include better images. Let's forget about nudity, assume that it I don't like the image. Amongst most remarkable masterpieces of world art, there are even more notable works, such as the dome of Brunelleschi, Gioconda, San Pietro and many other sculptors.--115ash→(☏) 11:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I just added the biggest church, which is more remarkable.--115ash→(☏) 11:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I perfectly agree with Alex. I don't understand 115ash's concerns and I think that Michelangelo's David is probably the most appropriate symbol of Renaissance. Only Leonardo's Vitruvian Man would be a good competitor, but I would leave it where it is. --Checco (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
What? Since when that has been considered the most appropriate symbol of Renaissance? San Pietro, Gioconda, Cathedral of Florence and many others are much more suitable. 115ash→(☏) 11:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2015

There seems to be factual inaccuracy in what is said of Michelet in the second and third sentences of the following paragraph from the Wikipedia entry headed Renaissance:

“The word "Renaissance" is borrowed from the French language, where it means "re-birth". It was first used and defined[16] by French historian Jules Michelet (1798–1874), in his 1855 work, Histoire de France (History of France).[79] His work is at the origin of the use of the French word "Renaissance" in other languages.”

That paragraph is also inconsistent with another pair of sentences in the same article:

“The word Renaissance, literally meaning "Rebirth" in French, first appears in English in the 1830s.[15] The word occurs in Jules Michelet's 1855 work, Histoire de France.”

It is certainly true that the word appears in English well before it was used by Michelet, but that is because Michelet was not the originator of the use of the word in French or, for that matter, English.

Section 1 of Michelet's 1855 Introduction to his Histoire de France provides an analysis of the ways in which the word renaissance was used in French at the time but it cannot be the origin of the use of the word.

In 1845 Étienne Jean Delécluze, referred to his book on Roland as a section of “mon ouvrage sur la renaissance”, and in the first sentence of its Preface he defines that as “la renaissance des lumières et de la civilisation en Europe”.

In 1840 T.A. Trollope A Summer in Brittany in his account of the church of St Thégonec suggests that the word was in common use in France at least 15 years before Michelet: he refers there to 'the “renaissance”, as the French choose to term it'.

By 1840 Charles Lenormant in Rabelais et l'architecture de la Renaissance uses the word simply and without further explanation to refer to the relationship between the fictional Abbaye de Thélème in Rabelais and buildings such as the châteaux of Chambord and Fontainebleau which would are now readily referred to as Renaissance buildings.

In 1822 J.A.Coussin in Du génie de l'architectures seems to assume that his readers are familiar with the term renaissance used without any qualifying phrase. He does not define it but from the beginning simply refers to “l'époque appellée la renaissance” or “le temps appelé la Renaissance”.

In 1787 the word renaissance was used, with a qualifying phrase, by Antoine-Nicolas Dezallier d'Argenville in his Vies Des Fameux Sculpteurs Depuis La Renaissance Des Arts. Both his title and the references in his footnotes make clear his debt to Vasari.and the concept of la rinascita, which Vasari generally qualifies with an expression such as l'arti di disegno

In 1772 Alexandre Julien Savérien used the word renaissance, though with a qualifying phrase, in Histoire des philosophes anciens, jusqu'à la renaissance des lettres. That book was reviewed in England in the Critical Review of 1773.

The notion of the “la renaissance des lettres” seems to be derived from d'Alembert's 1751 “Discours préliminaire” to l’Encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, edited by d'Alembert and Diderot.

Michelet was important but he was not the originator of the use of the word “renaissance” in its modern sense. 86.160.37.55 (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Done Thank you for pointing this out! The claims in the article (which are also present in the article on Jules Michelet) seem to be based on a misreading of the source. The source actually says "in 1855 we find, for the first time, the word 'Renaissance' used — by the French historian Michelet — as an adjective to describe a whole period of history and not confined to the rebirth of Latin letters or a classically inspired style in the arts." This book clarifies things and confirms the claims you make in your request. It says the word Renaissance was "coined in the eighteenth century and first popularized by Michelet in the nineteenth."
Accordingly, I have changed the paragraph you mention to read The word "Renaissance" is borrowed from the French language, where it means "re-birth". It was first used in the eighteenth century and was later popularized by French historian Jules Michelet (1798–1874), in his 1855 work, Histoire de France (History of France). How does that sound? I also changed another sentence in the article about Michelet, and I'm about to change the Michelet article itself. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I did not change the Michelet article; it says he was the first to define the Renaissance "as a period in Europe's cultural history that represented a drastic break from the Middle Ages," which I think is in accord with what the Murray source says. Let me know if you disagree. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

John Milton in the "England" section

It is said that "In England, the sixteenth century marked the beginning of the English Renaissance with the work of writers William Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe, Edmund Spenser, Sir Thomas More, Francis Bacon, Sir Philip Sidney, John Milton".

However, John Milton was born in 1608 and therefore does not belong to the 16th century.

Perhaps it would be a good idea either to rephrase by mentioning the 17th century or remove altogether the name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.25.78.124 (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed it -- not sure if we want to extend the Renaissance all the way to the middle 17th century -- would have to include a lot of other names as well, and rewrite the English Renaissance article to match. Antandrus (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Add a key photo on Spanish Renaissance

I think it's important for the topic to put on the "spanish section" the next photo with the description:

Santa Cruz Palace (1486-1491) in Valladolid is considered to be the earliest extant building of the Spanish Renaissance.

--81.172.0.207 (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

And thems the facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.79.137 (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

End of the Renaissance

The current article doesn't really address this issue, which should be expected in an encyclopedic entry on a period of time, even if the legitimacy of creating such periods is debatable (as the article does address). The article includes substantial discussion about the debated beginnings and origins of the Renaissance, but virtually nothing about the conclusion. This confusion is seen in part in the discussion about whether to include Milton above, despite the statement at the beginning of the article that it goes into the 17th century. Various scholars have proposed a range of dates for which the Renaissance can be said to end, with the mid-16th century looming large due to major political developments that altered the cultural and religious landscape. For the British Isles, this includes the execution of absolute monarch Charles I, setting up a period of Puritanical ascendancy that would collapse after about a decade. Around the same time on the continent, the Protestant forces prevail in the 30 Years War thanks to the intervention of Catholic France on their side. These changes seem to bridge the way from the preoccupations of the Renaissance to those of the Enlightenment Era. Also, the colonization of North America precedes at a rapid and diverse pace from this time on, representing an important shift toward imperialism in the national outlook of the major European powers. This is just one example of a probable date for the end of the Renaissance of 1648, but other dates can also be proposed. Some discussion of these various options, as well as the causal mechanisms that led to an end of the Renaissance and the distinctive cultural changes that signaled an end to what was the Renaissance, ought to be included in a major section of this article. Without that, the article is severely lacking. Ftjrwrites (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Good points but you need a good RS that makes them explicit. Rjensen (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2016

174.44.64.225 (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC) This page has no the period of years of renaissance 174.44.64.225 (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done the article starts "The Renaissance ... is a period in Europe, from the 14th to the 17th century" - Arjayay (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2016

{Mitrain was renaissance establisher.}

Mayank mv (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

humanism

This article did not elaborate fully on the actual mind-set of humanism. It was helpful that it outlined a couple of key components, but for people who are not very knowledgeable on the topic of the Renaissance, it could lead to confusion of the overall theme and way of thinking. Teacho12 (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

This article seems to drift away from the main theme of humanism. Teacho12 (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

sources

This article is consistently referencing the terms “many people” and “commonly” instead of referring us to a source which actually proves this information. Teacho12 (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2017

Hei og Hade 77.106.165.126 (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Renaissance. 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) 16:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Renaissance. 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) 10:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Fashion

Somewhere in this article there should be links to the following; perhaps just a section header with bulleted list?

...Others, perhaps — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C9A:4B44:2E28:1611 (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Renaissance. 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) 01:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2017

182.186.29.188 (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Try these alternatives:

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Gulumeemee (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2018

add something about how this and the harlem renaissance are different 185.138.38.98 (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

 Already done - there is already a hatnote at the top of this article linking to Renaissance (disambiguation), as well as a link directly to Harlem Renaissance in the Other Renaissances section. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2018 delete

96.33.73.33 (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Hhkohh (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's talk lol

Come and talk w me lol Linnea.Ekman (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2019

This period is when their was a rediscovery in classical learning which lead to achievement is arts,education. 172.58.201.204 (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2019

The library is the greatest of the 15th century so that qualification should be closure to when it was the greatest instead of being mentioned after all the types of works in the collections because some works predate the 15th century and it certainly is not considerdd the greatest accummalation after the Vatican. 2605:E000:9149:8300:85AC:1E61:6D2A:99D (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 06:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2019

The part on Bengal Renaissance should be removed from this Renaissance page. It is stated at the begining of the article that it only treats European Renaissance. Having Bengal Renaissance is misleading. 166.48.199.106 (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The specific spot in the text is about the spread of the renaissance from Europe to other places. This is a flat not-done. Izno (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bengal renaissance thing

Ok, it appears that we have a very slow add/delete edit war on the Bengal Renaissance, said one who has no previous history in this.

There are grounds for leaving it in *IF* it can be shown that it is was a result of the European Renaissance of the 14th to 16th centuries. Was the Bengal 'renaissance' based on European values and ideas? What were the mechanisms by which those ideas and values were transmitted to India, and how/ why did they catch on? If it can be shown that it was the European-derived movement, then it should stay BUT the text needs improving: at the moment it's a list of Bengali Indian thinkers and artists without any explicit indication of which strands of this article's subject (the return to classical Greek and Roman roots in European culture in Italy from the 14th century) were transferred, were relevant. Scarabocchio (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

From reading the Bengali Renaissance article, there seems to be no real connection between the bengali movment and the actual european renaissance, either in history, ideological origins, or stylistic similarities in artistic movements. The bengali article has no place in this article or any reference to the actual renaissance; it is merely a shared use of a term and superficial similarities at best. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree completely with all that you have written here. I also support your removal of the entry from the {{Renaissance}} template on the same grounds. Scarabocchio (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2019

203.192.225.190 (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MrClog (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2019

Change "thechnology" to "technology" in the Overview section. 2600:1700:EDB0:161F:C8C3:464D:913C:5C11 (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 21:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Renaissance/Archive_3&oldid=1083531614"