Talk:Adoration of the Shepherds (Domenichino)

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

What is wrong with convention?[edit]

My edits to have the article follow the same standardised layout of the vast majority of article was reverted twice. Why? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"the same standardised layout of the vast majority of articles" you have fiddled with you mean, don't you? Not the "vast majority of articles" by any means. Look around. Johnbod (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked around. The insistence on having your layout smacks of WP:OWNERSHIP. Anyway, there are far more important things to do than quibble over such trifles. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
Having checked through all of Category:Baroque paintings and checked the lead style of each, it appears to be in the style of :"The title of work is a what the work is (ie.:painting, sculpture, oil on canvas, etc.) of the insert period here." style, which suggests that the style Alan Liefting is proposing fits more closely, but not identically, to that the average. I would suggest a compromise of both of your styles to that of the norm as a way to settle this dispute. Tartarus talk 06:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should also look at WP:VAMOS, the relevant style guide. There is only an issue where the subject of the painting has it's own article, which Lieftking tried to put all the way down the bottom in "see also", totally unacceptably to my mind, but let's hear what you think. As far as I can see the only comparable example in the main category of Category:Baroque paintings is Assumption of the Virgin (Carracci), which follows a similar formula to here. Note that many articles in the sub-cats do not link at all to articles on the subject of the painting, which is clearly a fault (often they pre-date these articles). For example The Entombment of Christ (Caravaggio) has no link to The Entombment of Christ, which is highly relevant - I will correct this one, but others are easy to find. I had in any case amended the first sentence here somewhat to reflect his concerns. If you are going to comment, please do so regarding all the issues in his initial edits [1], as follows:
  1. Liefting moves the link to the article on the subject of the painting to "see also".
  2. Liefting delinks a red-linked old master's name, see WP:RED
  3. Liefting changes the citation template for the referencing section without discussion. See WP:CITE
  4. Liefting changes "notes" to "References". See WP:FNNR
  5. Liefting changes "References" (with books) to "sources", as a sub-header. He later claims this matches "the vast majority of articles". See WP:FNNR. You might comment on how common this naming is in your experience.
  6. When he is reverted he adds a "cleanup" tag to the article, when it is still on the main page as the DYK with picture.
  7. When he is reverted he alleges WP:OWNERSHIP. See WP:AGF

Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adoration of the Shepherds (Domenichino). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adoration_of_the_Shepherds_(Domenichino)&oldid=1198044012"