Talk:Italian Renaissance sculpture

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Joseph and wife.jpg

Added famous pieces reverted
Why on Earth would you not want David and Moses on this article? And for the very first image to not even be a photo of a sculpture? Please allow my edits to remain. 2603:9001:E01:5E62:A54C:DD0F:826C:DF69 (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We DON'T want to start the article with two incredibly well-known works by the same artist, and vertical images too! The images and their placement are carefully thought out, but with the vast variety of devices in use no arrangement will be ideal for everyone. I thought you were going to log in. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry. As you can see, I haven't been here long but I actually take my edits seriously, and I'm not just some random IP only editor. I'm only going to talk here now and not on your talk page, but I would like to try to move the images around some more to try and have a more logical image as the first one readers see. SaturatedFatts (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please don't - the first image shows what has been the famous showplace for Florentine sculpture for centuries, with a number of famous sculptues, most mentioned in the text. And it is not a very vertical statue image that everybody knows anyway. The purpose of the article is to tell and show things the reader probably doesn't know, not just the handfull of pieces they already do. Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What if Pieta is the first image and that painting is the 2nd? Then it will still be near the very top of the article. Plus, I think the article would be better with Moses and David somewhere lower down in the article. SaturatedFatts (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would highly appreciate it if you could at least look at my revised edit for a minute and actually consider what might be wrong with it - I will make sure the painting is entirely visible without needing to scroll down and also will not put the image of David anywhere near the top at all. If I was a reader opening this article, I would expect the first and largest image to be a photo of a highly renowned work from this period. I would also expect high resolution photos of very famous works I could look at, not just lesser known ones. For example, Donatello's David is in the article as I would expect it to be. I am only trying to include what I would expect to see as a reader of Wikipedia. SaturatedFatts (talk) 04:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If we are to debate the layout of this article, proposals should be made in a sandbox, not have unseemly revert wars in live space. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have had a good look at the revised version, and still don't think it is an improvement. You've added three of the best known pieces by the best known artist, because you think we are obliged to illustrate them very prominently. I disagree. Some readers might expect this, but we don't have to accomodate them. You might notice that serious art history book covers also usually avoid the most famous and obvious works. You've moved a work we don't know to be a portrait to the portrait section. And so on. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * and I have to agree. Yes, the choice of images is always going to be subjective, but in an article like this we should aim for a broad survey. We may almost take it as given that readers will already be familiar with the famous pieces and don't really need to see them again. Furthermore, to summarise MOS:IMAGES, pictures are "to illustrate not to decorate" so they need to be chosen on the basis of what best illustrates the adjacent text. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia, the most widely read online encyclopedia in the world, not some art history book made for scholars. But okay, I’ll leave your article alone. SaturatedFatts (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody WP:OWNs any article. But the content of articles is determined by WP:CONSENSUS and unfortunately you have not succeeded in securing consensus for the change you want to make. It happens to all of us and no, I didn't like it either when it happened to me, but them's the rules. Some you win, some you lose. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well then it just so happens that the person reverting every one of my edits is the creator and by far largest contributor to this article. Funny. SaturatedFatts (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * and as I wrote at 19:20, 14 July 2023, I agree with his analysis, and explained why I agree. Time was left for other editors to support your view but none have done so. It is not a WP:VOTE but the long-standing convention on Wikipedia is that WP:ONUS is on the editor who seeks to make a change to secure a consensus for it. You did not succeed. Yes, that policy can be annoyingly conservative but it has worked very well in keeping Wikipedia out of twitter-style maelstroms. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)