Talk:Cardinal of Portugal's Altarpiece

Provenance
From what I can understand of the Italian article, this painting was not entirely the work of Antonio del Pollaiolo, with at least parts of it being attributed to his brother Piero. Do you have any more information you could add about the provenance of the painting? (I notice that the Commons category for this work lists both Antonio and Piero as the creators.) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Name
I suppose the correct title to this article is "Cardinal of Portugal Altarpiece", since you translated "cardinale" and "pala". "Del Portogallo" in Italian means "from Portugal". JMdosPerais 06:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GualdimG (talk • contribs)
 * Changed. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization
You might be better versed than me on this matter, but I feel that "altarpiece" in the title of the artwork ought to be capitalized, according to MOS:TITLECAPS. Would that be incorrect in this case? —  RAVEN PVFF   · talk  · 10:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily I would agree, & would have made it so, but in this case the name seems rather informal and popular, with many variants. I looked at uses in sources & google & decided not to cap, but I don't feel strongly. Johnbod (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's informal, I think there's a good case that it shouldn't be italicized, as it's a name and not a title (MOS:VATITLE). I've just done so in the article, but feel free to disagree! Thanks —  RAVEN PVFF   · talk  · 12:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's an unclear area, but I think a painting should have a title, and many names like Rokeby Venus, not to mention Mona Lisa, that are clearly from much later are treated as titles. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Altarpiece for the Cardinal of Portugal's Chapel would be a way to sidestep the capitalisation issue in the article title, because while it would treat "Cardinal of Portugal's Chapel" as a proper name (cf. Brancacci Chapel, Chigi Chapel, Medici Chapel...) it would allow the full phrase to be interpreted either as a name or as a title. The use or not of italics, and also the capitalisation in running text, would rather give the game away, though.
 * With altarpieces we do often have descriptive names treated as italicised titles: Ghent Altarpiece, Polyptych of the Misericordia (Piero della Francesca), Altarpiece of the Holy Sacrament. But we also have no italics at Wilton Diptych, Polyptych of Perugia and others, and mixed usage at Tauberbischofsheim Altarpiece, Frari Triptych and others. Ham II (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Altarpiece for the Cardinal of Portugal's Chapel is possible - "Cardinal of Portugal's Chapel" is standard in sources, and certainly a proper name, but I must say I don't like it. I see no reason why Wilton Diptych and probably Polyptych of Perugia and Tauberbischofsheim Altarpiece should not be capitalized - the last is inconsistent between article title and text. I'm a bit unsure Polyptych of Perugia actually is the best title in English - do sources use it? Johnbod (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I take it you mean italicised as well capitalised? I would be happy for us to treat that kind of construction as indicating a title rather than a name: Wilton Diptych and Tauberbischofsheim Altarpiece, like Benois Madonna or Arnolfini Portrait. For this work, that would make the article title either Cardinal of Portugal's Altarpiece or Altarpiece for the Cardinal of Portugal's Chapel. Ham II (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Gone with the first - done. Redirected the other. Thanks both. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)