Template:Did you know nominations/Anonimo Gaddiano
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Anonimo Gaddiano
[edit]... that the brief biographies of Italian artists by the Anonimo Gaddiano were written before Vasari's Lives, but not published before 1892?Source Wierda: 157, "The first part is devoted to artists from classical antiquity and the second contains the lives and works of a number of Florentine artists, from Cimabue to Michelangelo, as well as a brief survey of Sienese artists." and "At the end of the nineteenth century, annotated transcriptions were made by Cornelius von Fabriczy (1891) and Carl Frey (1892), and a transcription with brief annotations by Annamaria Ficarra appeared in 1968" - but the Fabriczy was not published until 1893, see EL; 165: "Unfortunately for Bernardo, the appearance of Vasari’s “Vite” in 1550 rendered his “Codice” both superfluous and obsolete". 166 "He stopped work on his manuscript before January 1547"
Created by Fb2ts (talk) and Johnbod (talk). Nominated by Johnbod (talk) at 02:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC).
- This is a couple of days late to be nominated, which I hope is ok. In fact almost all the writing was done within 5 days of starting. The other nom is I think new to DYK , and fairly new to editing. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment: The article was created on September 24, 9 days before the nomination. Jon Kolbert (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the English language Anonima Gaddiano article is currently sporting egregious inaccuracies that are pending resolution -- most notably two in the very first sentence.
1. Anonimo was used to refer to the text's alleged author by the author who is primarily quoted, one might even say paraphrased, in the Wikipedia entry. Said author (Bouk Wierda) acknowledges that they have done this, in footnote [6] of their paper, but by the end of the same paper, said author goes ahead and accepts their own hypothesis -- based on two handwriting samples (ie, the "scholarship" is a bit goofy). Meanwhile, all other texts, and indeed in the Wierda text itself, Anonimo Gaddiano is universally referred as a manuscript.
See also the entries for Anonimo Gaddiano in both the Italian and French versions (at least last time I checked).
2. Furthermore, attempts to locate the use of Anonima Fiorentina as an alternative name for the Anonimo Gaddiano manuscript comes up with only one mention (on the internet, at least), and that mention clearly states that Anonima Fiorentino is an "Augustinian".
Not only is Anonimo Gaddiano not a person, it would appear not to be a manuscript commonly referred to as Anonimo Fiorentino either. See the article's talk page.Fb2ts (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I thought we had settled this. You obviously haven't looked at the other main ref, the very reputable Dictionary of Art Historians:
- "Magliabechiano, Anonimo (or Anonymo) "anonymous author of the Magliabechiano MS"
- Date born: fl. 1537-42
- Anonymous author of a now fragmental history, likely written after 1541"
Anybody who was already familiar with the subject area knows that the name describes the author not the MS, though it may be used for both. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Aha! Now I see. But the article I started was for the Manuscript. I'd suggest we do a separate one for the Author, but you've put so much work into the original, it makes more sense for me to start fresh. I will start one for Anonimo Gaddiano (Manuscript).
Is there a way for you to append (Author) to the title of the article I originally started for the manuscript, not realizing that it would be interpreted as an article about the author? Fb2ts (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- This stuff largely repeats discussions on the article talk page, where there is some more. It all seems to be settled now. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Outstanding Issue Number One for Anonimo Gaddiano article
- The Dictionary of Art Historians states that
- Magliabechiano, Anonimo (or Anonymo) "anonymous author of the Magliabechiano MS"
- The entry being discussed is for Anonimo Gaddiano, a manuscript. Not a person. If you want to say that Anonimo Gaddiano is used to refer to a person, you need to give a reputable source that does so.
- If you would like to create a subheading, or an other article, to cover Anonimo Magliabechiano (in the "not to be confused with" category, then go for it. I created an article for a manuscript commonly referred as Anonimo Gaddiano. Everyplace I have come across it, including in the articles cited in the Anonimo Gaddiano article, uses the term to refer to a manuscript.
- I agree that it makes sense to move this discussion to the talk page of the article itself. What's the usual procedure? Just cut and paste once first and second editors reach an agreement to do so? Fb2ts (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- You have already started several sections at the article talk page, and been responded to there. I suggest you reread that page, as you are making no points that have not been asked and answered there. If you have forgotten that Anonimo Gaddiano and Anonimo Magliabechiano are exactly the same person, and manuscript by that person, then you really need to refresh. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- The Dictionary of Art Historians states that
DYK ineligible Article was not new enough nor did it receive 5x expansion at the time of nomination. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
This nomination was made by a respected DYK regular, was only two days late, and considering WP:DYKSG#D9 and the backlog of 46 approved hooks waiting to be promoted, should not be rejected basted on the 48-hour time delay. New reviewer needed. Yoninah (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Fb2ts, thank you for interesting facts on good sources! Offline source accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. Hook: I'd add a year to Vasari, or people will not notice the centuries in between. I wonder if we should say also "anonymous manuscript" instead of "the". - Article: what do you think of an introduction that is a summary, and putting what's at the beginning now in "History"? An infobox might clarify that is is mainly about a manuscript, I'd think. I don't care about the two days "too late", - this deserves to be noticed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- Gerda, the article is mainly about a person, known only through his MS.
- ALT1 " ... that the brief biographies of Italian artists by the Anonimo Gaddiano were written before Vasari's Lives of 1550, but not published before 1892? Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I trust your expertise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Johnbod:, it's a little confusing to the casual reader to preface a person's name with "the". Could we add a translation?
- ALT1a:
... that the brief biographies of Italian artists by the Anonimo Gaddiano ("anonymous Florentine") were written before Vasari's Lives of 1550, but not published before 1892?Yoninah (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- Sadly, Anonimo Gaddiano does not mean "anonymous Florentine" - that is "anonimo Fiorentino", which is an alternative name, but not used these days, as there are several other anonymous Florentines. "Gaddiano" is explained in the article, but I would not know how to translate it for a hook. Let's hope people are intrigued by the hook and actually look at the article. Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
