Thanks for your question. Consensus is against signatures being included in articles about artists. Over several years there have been long discussions as to whether signatures should be included in articles about artists and consensus was against the inclusion of signatures for a variety of reasons. Please don't add signatures to articles about artists. We all devote time and energy here and work hard, although I am sorry to have reverted without explaining first...Modernist (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I did´nt know this! This is acceptable. What about the autograph in Leonardo da Vinci? I think, I will delete it too. --Hubertl-AT (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to Leonardo, many drawings of his, such as the Vitruvian Man, have "signatures" that were added later to give the picture greater credibility.
None of his paintings are signed. As for the signature from the Codex Forster, it has been digitised in such a way that it has lost its true character. I was unaware of this policy until I came to your page, but I would be happy to see the Codex Forster image deleted, and only included if it appears in a proper, photographic form.Amandajm (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information, I understood Modernist that having no signatures at artist-pages is is common sense. In the case of da Vinci it was different, I inserted - in my opinion - a correct signature, because the existing - an autograph - belongs to the journal, so I transferred it to the journal sector. These signatures I uploaded yesterday (the last ten in the row). --Hubertl-AT (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
