This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lisa del Giocondo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Lisa del Giocondo is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 13, 2008. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The heading of the picture, "Thought to be Lisa del Giocondo", seems a little awkward to me. Is there any way this could be worded a little more formally, or possibly be removed? *Cremepuff 222* 21:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Having done Giovanni Arnolfini, I toyed briefly with setting up Category:People notable only for being the subject of portraits - Paul Gachet and er.... But an interesting article anyway. The Villani are I think also a notable family. The other-wives-with-prominent-Florentine-connections is a wierd similarity between Lisa and Giovanni A - I bet it would be possible to show they were related! Johnbod 14:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
These people say it was the important family: "Francesco iniziò sin da giovane a lavorare nell'azienda di famiglia e nel 1491 sposa Camilla Rucellai appartenente ad una delle migliori famiglie della Firenze dell'epoca." Johnbod 19:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I've become rather interested with this page, so I thought I would help out with improving it a bit. I was thinking that we could add a "see also" and possibly "external links" section. Would anyone be willing to add a section like this? *Cremepuff 222* 18:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of January 21, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
Requires tackling the mentioned problems above. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Λua∫ Wi se ( talk) 15:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Saint Francis needs disambiguation. -- Randomblue ( talk) 22:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:NAMES says, "After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only", and I don't think that del Giocondo should be an exception. I suggest changing most instances of "Lisa" to "del Giocondo" beginning with "Little is known about del Giocondo's life." I'm bringing this up on the talk page because I see that the name question has been discussed here earlier. The sources who call her "Lisa" may have been following a different style guide, or they may have reduced del Giocondo to Lisa out of habit because she was a woman. In any case, she was del Giocondo and not the painting and not the ideas associated with the painting, and referring to her by her surname in this article would help make those important distinctions more clear throughout. Finetooth ( talk) 04:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Mona Lisa Revealed' by Giuseppe Pallanti has been added as a source. A correction. I heard about it in the popular press and mis-characterized it as "amateur" (and as a result spent my small budget for this article elsewhere). Rather, it is a beautiful book whose author has both credentials as a historian and as a person who has lived in Florence. Clearly and as soon as possible, more parts of Lisa's life can be described here. - Susanlesch ( talk) 01:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Upon entrusting her care to their daughter Ludovica .... Earlier in the article it lists their five children, and Ludovica is not mentioned. This is a discrepancy. 91.105.2.153 ( talk) 01:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I read in "The Life Behind The Mona Lisa" by Lord Byron that there were rumors of her being lesbian the latter part of her life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivantrollet ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is the subject of this article referred to by her first name throughout - surely her surname should be used, in line with the MOS? 92.40.8.97 ( talk) 12:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Icon be Secular icon? I've changed it on the article page, but I'd need an admin to change it on the featured article page on the front page. 76.116.109.221 ( talk) 14:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Is the form "Lisa del Gioconda", mentioned in the lead, really commonly found? I know that the painting is often called "La Gioconda", but the form "del Gioconda" seems to be un-Italian. Lesgles ( talk) 18:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No, not enough names: the article begins "Lisa del Gioconda" (with the Italian pronunciation of Giocondo), and the picture box is so titled, and in the box, her husband's name is given as Gioconda. Curmudgeonly Pedant ( talk) 00:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The Wiki main page states that she was a mother five children yet when you go to the document it tells she was a mother of six children. Please revise... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.172 ( talk) 23:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The article in it.wiki appears to have a number of Italian-language sources that may be useful for building this article. Mangostar ( talk) 16:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe that this statement “The people of France have owned the Mona Lisa since the French Revolution” could be improved and clarified by indicating that the picture was at first acquired and owned by Francis I of France during the sixteenth century, and that during the French revolution it came into the possession of the people. In this way, it will be explained, that the picture was in custody of France several years before the revolution. -- Taty2007 ( talk) 02:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I have hidden this drawing because it is not a "cartoon for the Mona Lisa" as stated here and would never have bee attributed to Leonardo by any truly reliable art historian. Reasons
Let me point out that if this drawing was accepted as genuine, then it would be enormously famous, and reproduced in every single book on Leonardo, and shown alongside the painting. It would have been scanned for evidence countless times by people wanting to understand more about how the World's most famous portrait was created.
But the facts are that the Mona Lisa has been copied, and copied and copied. This present copy might have been done by an admiring student. But on the other hand, the state of the drawing looks to me as if someone has deliberately attempted to imitate the state of the Virgin and Child with St Anne and St John. This has included glue several sheets of paper together, and making the edge tatty in a similar way.
But look at the differences: there is no way in the world that the creator of that magnificent cartoon could have produced anything as totally average as the Mona Lisa drawing. Don't be fooled!
Amandajm ( talk) 03:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Greetings, Hans Dunkelberg. Thank you a lot for your addition to this article. But I would like to understand better but sorry to say I don't speak German (I have to depend on Babel Fish to translate the article you cite). I understand that Dr. Probst is the director of the Heidelberg Library? Can you please explain why he says that the Vespucci note dispels all doubts about Lisa's identity, and then he says "However, the theoretical possibility is going to persist Leonardo might have painted a portrait of Lisa del Giocondo, but that this might have got lost."? Surely a lot of things could have happened. I think WP:UNDUE would apply about such speculation, for which we have an entire article: Speculation about Mona Lisa. - SusanLesch ( talk) 17:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Probst`s utterance is probably a concession to that certain kind of thoroughness that drives one to demand logical proofs, also in the realms of historical sciences, sometimes.
I am going to translate the German version of the margin note that he offers on the Heidelberg University website, into English, so that every reader of Wikipedia will be able to meditate about this issue on the better new basis that has now come up. -- Hans Dunkelberg ( talk) 19:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi!
I`m a little confused about this edit by SusanLesch. For me it is quite clear that it is wrong to insert two whole sentences on the situation in the Quattrocento Florence, in this article, in which there is not said a single word about Lisa del Giocondo or her family. Is it possible to put into a few words why this should be done? -- Hans Dunkelberg ( talk) 23:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The web page that you are inserting into various articles regarding the Mona Lisa is absolutely inappropriate for use in a Wikipedia article. It is not a reliable source and appears to be original research, both of which make it unusable. Please stop inserting it repeatedly into these articles, or you may be blocked from editing. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The article does not state whether or not Lisa left descendants. In fact, it fails to mention what happened to her three sons, only touching upon her daughters and stepson. If any information is known about the sons, it should be added to the article.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 06:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The tabloid-style sentence in the lead "it took on a separate life from Lisa, the woman" sounds very unencyclopedic for a FA article. It needs to be reworded.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 17:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Leonardo welcomes Mona Lisa Ghirardini into his studio in the city of Florence to paint a portrait that was never delivered to the owner. http://www.amazon.com/DA-VINCI-IN-LOVE-Leonardo-ebook/dp/B00Q9AK41U
Sa molto di rotocalco estivo il chiasso mediatico sollevatosi intorno alla ricerca dei resti di Monna Lisa Ghirardini, universalmente nota per essere stata – così si dice – immortalata da Leonardo nella cosiddetta Gioconda del Louvre. http://storiedellarte.com/2013/08/monna-lisa-e-i-collezionisti-di-ossa.html
Also Gherardini or Ghirardini ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.231.48.157 ( talk) 04:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lisa del Giocondo. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Lisa del Giocondo. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lisa del Giocondo. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately an individual who is now blocked from editing added "use dmy dates" to this article last year. A number of people have tried to clean up the mess. It was written in mdy which is just fine per MOS:DATEFORMAT. I hope no one minds that I just changed it back. - SusanLesch ( talk) 20:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Greetings, User:Binho24. I object to this edit, with the summary to uses dmy dates for an Italian subject. You can't come in here and change something like that and then disappear. I will have to come back when I have time to correct this. - SusanLesch ( talk) 18:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
The section breaks in the Mona Lisa section gave the impression that this article fully covered topics named in the headings. I removed those headings because this article is about Lisa, the subject. We don't have room to cover all those details here, and we don't wish to duplicate effort. They should be discussed in the article Mona Lisa. Much better to minimize that information here. - SusanLesch ( talk) 16:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Is the painting called the Mona Lisa or Mona Lisa? - SusanLesch ( talk) 16:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Does anyone here have knowledge or sources to help us ascertain the truth? - SusanLesch ( talk) 18:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Despite Zollner's claim ("Leonardo's Portrait", p. 124), Francesco del Giocondo's commissioning of two thirdrate Florentine painters to decorate his family chapel in SS. Annunziata does not put him into the same class of art patron as the Doni and the Strozzi, patrician families with distinguished histories of commissions from first rate artists.
Hi, I wonder if this should be moved to Lisa Gherardini? I am working on this slowly to avoid a FAR review (one other FA ahead of this one). Not long after this became an FA in 2008 a woman wrote to me saying we should. I asked Prof/Dr Zöllner who deferred to historians but thought what we have is fine (as long as we call her "Lisa"). I'm trying to catch up on intervening books. In Mona Lisa: A Life Discovered, Dianne Hales says on page 2,
Like other women of her time, Lisa would have carried her father's name, Gherardini, throughout her life.
Are there any opinions? We have some time to consider. - SusanLesch ( talk) 21:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
GiantSnowman, I appreciate that you are the
29th author of this article however I expect an administrator with your tenure to explain himself on talk rather than start an
edit war.
MOS:VAR says Edit-warring over style...is never acceptable.
Your first edit waved your arms around
MOS:NUM, an entire page, with no clue as to why. The best guidance I am able to find there is For any given article, the choice of date format and the choice of national variety of English...are independent issues.
My reply cited
MOS:VAR,
MOS:ENGVAR and
MOS:DATEVAR. Your second edit summary says "date format is not correct for Italian subject" which appears to be what you originally intended to say. Would you please cite the part of MOS:NUM that applies to your assertion? Thank you. -
SusanLesch (
talk)
17:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
It is incorrect to claim that DMY is used for Italian subjects. The relevant part of "Manual of Style/Dates and numbers" is "Retaining existing format" which states
*The date format chosen in the first major contribution in the early stages of an article (i.e., the first non-stub version) should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
Although there is language about using the format most common in a particular English-speaking country when the topic is related to that country, there is no similar language about non-English-speaking countries and all attempts to add such language have been rejected by the editing community. Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
This topic is being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#MOS on date format by country. Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
MOS:DATETIES states
For any given article, the choice of date format and the choice of national variety of English (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Strong national ties to a topic) are independent issues.
- Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation. For the United States this is (for example) July 4, 1976; for most other English-speaking countries it is 4 July 1976.
- Articles related to Canada may use either format with (as always) consistency within each article. (
) In topics where a date format that differs from the usual national one is in customary usage, that format should be used for related articles: for example, articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military, should use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage.
As I understand this, the first bullet point says the strong ties concept only applies if the topic is related to an English-speaking country. So this bullet point disappears if the article is about an Italian.
The third bullet point is a special case, within the first bullet point; articles about the US military use DMY because the people who wrote the guideline thought that was the usual format used by the US military and other publications about the US military. But if there were an article about the Japan Self-Defence Forces, how those forces write dates when writing in Japanese would be irrelevant to which date format would be used in a Wikipedia article about them.
Finally, Wikipedia policies and guidelines influence each other. Wikipedia articles do not influence the interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. " Date and time notation in Italy" is an article so is irrelevant in interpreting and enforcing MOS:DATETIES. Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
An explanatory footnote avers:
Um, what? What is this even supposed to mean? What does the explanatory footnote help to explain? -- Trovatore ( talk) 20:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
This article says Lisa del Giocondo died July 14, 1542. MOS:JG indicates "Dates of events in countries using the Gregorian calendar at that time are given in the Gregorian calendar. This includes some of the Continent of Europe from 1582...." So this date should be understood to be in the Julian calendar. But the Wikidata item for her gives her date of death as July 25, 1542, Julian calendar. Wikidata claims this information was imported from the Russian Wikipedia. Maybe someone with access to a suitable reliable source could fix whichever date(s) is (are) wrong. Jc3s5h ( talk) 21:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lisa del Giocondo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Lisa del Giocondo is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 13, 2008. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The heading of the picture, "Thought to be Lisa del Giocondo", seems a little awkward to me. Is there any way this could be worded a little more formally, or possibly be removed? *Cremepuff 222* 21:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Having done Giovanni Arnolfini, I toyed briefly with setting up Category:People notable only for being the subject of portraits - Paul Gachet and er.... But an interesting article anyway. The Villani are I think also a notable family. The other-wives-with-prominent-Florentine-connections is a wierd similarity between Lisa and Giovanni A - I bet it would be possible to show they were related! Johnbod 14:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
These people say it was the important family: "Francesco iniziò sin da giovane a lavorare nell'azienda di famiglia e nel 1491 sposa Camilla Rucellai appartenente ad una delle migliori famiglie della Firenze dell'epoca." Johnbod 19:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I've become rather interested with this page, so I thought I would help out with improving it a bit. I was thinking that we could add a "see also" and possibly "external links" section. Would anyone be willing to add a section like this? *Cremepuff 222* 18:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of January 21, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
Requires tackling the mentioned problems above. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Λua∫ Wi se ( talk) 15:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Saint Francis needs disambiguation. -- Randomblue ( talk) 22:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:NAMES says, "After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only", and I don't think that del Giocondo should be an exception. I suggest changing most instances of "Lisa" to "del Giocondo" beginning with "Little is known about del Giocondo's life." I'm bringing this up on the talk page because I see that the name question has been discussed here earlier. The sources who call her "Lisa" may have been following a different style guide, or they may have reduced del Giocondo to Lisa out of habit because she was a woman. In any case, she was del Giocondo and not the painting and not the ideas associated with the painting, and referring to her by her surname in this article would help make those important distinctions more clear throughout. Finetooth ( talk) 04:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Mona Lisa Revealed' by Giuseppe Pallanti has been added as a source. A correction. I heard about it in the popular press and mis-characterized it as "amateur" (and as a result spent my small budget for this article elsewhere). Rather, it is a beautiful book whose author has both credentials as a historian and as a person who has lived in Florence. Clearly and as soon as possible, more parts of Lisa's life can be described here. - Susanlesch ( talk) 01:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Upon entrusting her care to their daughter Ludovica .... Earlier in the article it lists their five children, and Ludovica is not mentioned. This is a discrepancy. 91.105.2.153 ( talk) 01:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I read in "The Life Behind The Mona Lisa" by Lord Byron that there were rumors of her being lesbian the latter part of her life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivantrollet ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is the subject of this article referred to by her first name throughout - surely her surname should be used, in line with the MOS? 92.40.8.97 ( talk) 12:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Icon be Secular icon? I've changed it on the article page, but I'd need an admin to change it on the featured article page on the front page. 76.116.109.221 ( talk) 14:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Is the form "Lisa del Gioconda", mentioned in the lead, really commonly found? I know that the painting is often called "La Gioconda", but the form "del Gioconda" seems to be un-Italian. Lesgles ( talk) 18:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No, not enough names: the article begins "Lisa del Gioconda" (with the Italian pronunciation of Giocondo), and the picture box is so titled, and in the box, her husband's name is given as Gioconda. Curmudgeonly Pedant ( talk) 00:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The Wiki main page states that she was a mother five children yet when you go to the document it tells she was a mother of six children. Please revise... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.172 ( talk) 23:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The article in it.wiki appears to have a number of Italian-language sources that may be useful for building this article. Mangostar ( talk) 16:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe that this statement “The people of France have owned the Mona Lisa since the French Revolution” could be improved and clarified by indicating that the picture was at first acquired and owned by Francis I of France during the sixteenth century, and that during the French revolution it came into the possession of the people. In this way, it will be explained, that the picture was in custody of France several years before the revolution. -- Taty2007 ( talk) 02:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I have hidden this drawing because it is not a "cartoon for the Mona Lisa" as stated here and would never have bee attributed to Leonardo by any truly reliable art historian. Reasons
Let me point out that if this drawing was accepted as genuine, then it would be enormously famous, and reproduced in every single book on Leonardo, and shown alongside the painting. It would have been scanned for evidence countless times by people wanting to understand more about how the World's most famous portrait was created.
But the facts are that the Mona Lisa has been copied, and copied and copied. This present copy might have been done by an admiring student. But on the other hand, the state of the drawing looks to me as if someone has deliberately attempted to imitate the state of the Virgin and Child with St Anne and St John. This has included glue several sheets of paper together, and making the edge tatty in a similar way.
But look at the differences: there is no way in the world that the creator of that magnificent cartoon could have produced anything as totally average as the Mona Lisa drawing. Don't be fooled!
Amandajm ( talk) 03:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Greetings, Hans Dunkelberg. Thank you a lot for your addition to this article. But I would like to understand better but sorry to say I don't speak German (I have to depend on Babel Fish to translate the article you cite). I understand that Dr. Probst is the director of the Heidelberg Library? Can you please explain why he says that the Vespucci note dispels all doubts about Lisa's identity, and then he says "However, the theoretical possibility is going to persist Leonardo might have painted a portrait of Lisa del Giocondo, but that this might have got lost."? Surely a lot of things could have happened. I think WP:UNDUE would apply about such speculation, for which we have an entire article: Speculation about Mona Lisa. - SusanLesch ( talk) 17:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Probst`s utterance is probably a concession to that certain kind of thoroughness that drives one to demand logical proofs, also in the realms of historical sciences, sometimes.
I am going to translate the German version of the margin note that he offers on the Heidelberg University website, into English, so that every reader of Wikipedia will be able to meditate about this issue on the better new basis that has now come up. -- Hans Dunkelberg ( talk) 19:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi!
I`m a little confused about this edit by SusanLesch. For me it is quite clear that it is wrong to insert two whole sentences on the situation in the Quattrocento Florence, in this article, in which there is not said a single word about Lisa del Giocondo or her family. Is it possible to put into a few words why this should be done? -- Hans Dunkelberg ( talk) 23:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The web page that you are inserting into various articles regarding the Mona Lisa is absolutely inappropriate for use in a Wikipedia article. It is not a reliable source and appears to be original research, both of which make it unusable. Please stop inserting it repeatedly into these articles, or you may be blocked from editing. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The article does not state whether or not Lisa left descendants. In fact, it fails to mention what happened to her three sons, only touching upon her daughters and stepson. If any information is known about the sons, it should be added to the article.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 06:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The tabloid-style sentence in the lead "it took on a separate life from Lisa, the woman" sounds very unencyclopedic for a FA article. It needs to be reworded.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 17:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Leonardo welcomes Mona Lisa Ghirardini into his studio in the city of Florence to paint a portrait that was never delivered to the owner. http://www.amazon.com/DA-VINCI-IN-LOVE-Leonardo-ebook/dp/B00Q9AK41U
Sa molto di rotocalco estivo il chiasso mediatico sollevatosi intorno alla ricerca dei resti di Monna Lisa Ghirardini, universalmente nota per essere stata – così si dice – immortalata da Leonardo nella cosiddetta Gioconda del Louvre. http://storiedellarte.com/2013/08/monna-lisa-e-i-collezionisti-di-ossa.html
Also Gherardini or Ghirardini ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.231.48.157 ( talk) 04:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lisa del Giocondo. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Lisa del Giocondo. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lisa del Giocondo. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately an individual who is now blocked from editing added "use dmy dates" to this article last year. A number of people have tried to clean up the mess. It was written in mdy which is just fine per MOS:DATEFORMAT. I hope no one minds that I just changed it back. - SusanLesch ( talk) 20:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Greetings, User:Binho24. I object to this edit, with the summary to uses dmy dates for an Italian subject. You can't come in here and change something like that and then disappear. I will have to come back when I have time to correct this. - SusanLesch ( talk) 18:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
The section breaks in the Mona Lisa section gave the impression that this article fully covered topics named in the headings. I removed those headings because this article is about Lisa, the subject. We don't have room to cover all those details here, and we don't wish to duplicate effort. They should be discussed in the article Mona Lisa. Much better to minimize that information here. - SusanLesch ( talk) 16:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Is the painting called the Mona Lisa or Mona Lisa? - SusanLesch ( talk) 16:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Does anyone here have knowledge or sources to help us ascertain the truth? - SusanLesch ( talk) 18:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Despite Zollner's claim ("Leonardo's Portrait", p. 124), Francesco del Giocondo's commissioning of two thirdrate Florentine painters to decorate his family chapel in SS. Annunziata does not put him into the same class of art patron as the Doni and the Strozzi, patrician families with distinguished histories of commissions from first rate artists.
Hi, I wonder if this should be moved to Lisa Gherardini? I am working on this slowly to avoid a FAR review (one other FA ahead of this one). Not long after this became an FA in 2008 a woman wrote to me saying we should. I asked Prof/Dr Zöllner who deferred to historians but thought what we have is fine (as long as we call her "Lisa"). I'm trying to catch up on intervening books. In Mona Lisa: A Life Discovered, Dianne Hales says on page 2,
Like other women of her time, Lisa would have carried her father's name, Gherardini, throughout her life.
Are there any opinions? We have some time to consider. - SusanLesch ( talk) 21:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
GiantSnowman, I appreciate that you are the
29th author of this article however I expect an administrator with your tenure to explain himself on talk rather than start an
edit war.
MOS:VAR says Edit-warring over style...is never acceptable.
Your first edit waved your arms around
MOS:NUM, an entire page, with no clue as to why. The best guidance I am able to find there is For any given article, the choice of date format and the choice of national variety of English...are independent issues.
My reply cited
MOS:VAR,
MOS:ENGVAR and
MOS:DATEVAR. Your second edit summary says "date format is not correct for Italian subject" which appears to be what you originally intended to say. Would you please cite the part of MOS:NUM that applies to your assertion? Thank you. -
SusanLesch (
talk)
17:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
It is incorrect to claim that DMY is used for Italian subjects. The relevant part of "Manual of Style/Dates and numbers" is "Retaining existing format" which states
*The date format chosen in the first major contribution in the early stages of an article (i.e., the first non-stub version) should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
Although there is language about using the format most common in a particular English-speaking country when the topic is related to that country, there is no similar language about non-English-speaking countries and all attempts to add such language have been rejected by the editing community. Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
This topic is being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#MOS on date format by country. Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
MOS:DATETIES states
For any given article, the choice of date format and the choice of national variety of English (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Strong national ties to a topic) are independent issues.
- Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation. For the United States this is (for example) July 4, 1976; for most other English-speaking countries it is 4 July 1976.
- Articles related to Canada may use either format with (as always) consistency within each article. (
) In topics where a date format that differs from the usual national one is in customary usage, that format should be used for related articles: for example, articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military, should use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage.
As I understand this, the first bullet point says the strong ties concept only applies if the topic is related to an English-speaking country. So this bullet point disappears if the article is about an Italian.
The third bullet point is a special case, within the first bullet point; articles about the US military use DMY because the people who wrote the guideline thought that was the usual format used by the US military and other publications about the US military. But if there were an article about the Japan Self-Defence Forces, how those forces write dates when writing in Japanese would be irrelevant to which date format would be used in a Wikipedia article about them.
Finally, Wikipedia policies and guidelines influence each other. Wikipedia articles do not influence the interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. " Date and time notation in Italy" is an article so is irrelevant in interpreting and enforcing MOS:DATETIES. Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
An explanatory footnote avers:
Um, what? What is this even supposed to mean? What does the explanatory footnote help to explain? -- Trovatore ( talk) 20:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
This article says Lisa del Giocondo died July 14, 1542. MOS:JG indicates "Dates of events in countries using the Gregorian calendar at that time are given in the Gregorian calendar. This includes some of the Continent of Europe from 1582...." So this date should be understood to be in the Julian calendar. But the Wikidata item for her gives her date of death as July 25, 1542, Julian calendar. Wikidata claims this information was imported from the Russian Wikipedia. Maybe someone with access to a suitable reliable source could fix whichever date(s) is (are) wrong. Jc3s5h ( talk) 21:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)