Talk:Tomb of Antipope John XXIII

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nominee for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of September 10, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Excellent tone and wording; the article flows well.

2. Factually accurate?: Accurate scholarly sources used.

3. Broad in coverage?: Considers many aspects of the tomb's significance; might be nice if more of this was reflected in the lead.

4. Neutral point of view?: Neutral in tone through-out.

5. Article stability? All edits appear to be article improvements.

6. Images?: Images help highlight the article and all are free for use.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — Shell ^babelfish 02:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tomb of Pope Martin V

"Martin V himself was buried underneath an undecorated bronze floor slab,[78] the only known example of a two-dimensional papal monument,[79] although also the first to be set in the central nave of a major basilica, the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome,[80] and cast in bronze—probably also by Donatello.[81]"

This passage should be deleted since it has nothing to do with the subject of the article. More importantly, however, it is inaccurate. Martin's tomb was far from undecorated--it is an elaborated carved bronze relief showing his effigy. It was also not set in the floor, as suggested, but raised above it on a marble base that was itself originally set on short columns. Finally, the attribution to Donatello is highly debatable. At best, Donatello is thought to have perhaps modeled the face and parts of the effigy. The casting is thought to have been done by others. I don't have time to document this, but for someone who would like to, I recommend starting with this article: Joachim Poeschke, "Still a Problem of Attribution: the Tomb Slab of Pope Martin V in San Giovanni in Laterano," in Large Bronzes in the Renaissance, ed. Peta Motture, 57-71 (Washington: National Gallery of Art, 2003). 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.112.70.95 (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds as if it is half-right - the tomb was undecorated, but there was a wall-monument Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I no longer have the source in question in my possession. It's therefore hard for me to determine whether this is correct. Please do as you will. Savidan 06:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Translation needed

The article it:Marzocco (simbolo) needs to be translated. it:Marzocco (Donatello) would be nice too. Srnec (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not the right place to request it but I agree. Savidan 04:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Florence Cathedral" exudes such a distinct air of awkward unfamiliarity with the context of the subject, it discourages the literate reader from pursuing farther. --Wetman (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely, but as far as this article is concerned I think its appropriate to stick with the title of that article. You should propose a move of that article rather than the links to it. Savidan 05:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should the featured article be forced to wait for second-rate articles to catch up? Don't we have piped links just for this? "(Il) Duomo" is not so good as an article title because every Italian city has its duomo, but "for the baptistry adjacent to the Duomo in Florence" looks fine to me. Srnec (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Do as you wish; just make sure it's consistent throughout. Savidan 05:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Look good? Srnec (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed extensivly at the other article before the title was changed - see talk there. The fact of the matter is, by no means everyone knows what the or a Duomo is, and to insist on using it is merely being precious. No one seems so concerned about German cathedrals being Doms! I am not so bothered about subsequent mentions. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to see a solid rationale for how this should be done before its changed one way or the other. I have no preference. Savidan 02:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

If he's the anti pope, does that mean he worships the anti christ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.89.236 (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No. See antipope - "An antipope is a person who makes a widely accepted claim to be the lawful pope, in opposition to the pope recognized by the Roman Catholic Church". KTC (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Who paid for it?

From the text it's not quite clear to me: did the Medicis pay for the tomb, or was it paid from John's estate? AxelBoldt (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)