Talk:Romanesque art

Romanesque Art
This page needs a lot of work; I've done a little, but my knowledge has been exhausted. It appears to be a complete rip-off of the Met article, found here. insiriusdenial 17:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would suggest taking from the French version which is the most advanced from all idioms. Epierre 11:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * MMA material finally removed. Now short but clean


 * I added a bit on Irish art in the Romanesque period, but I am not sure it's in the best place. Feel free to move it if you have a better idea of the evolved shape of the article. - PKM (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

'''Of course romanesque art occurs only in Western Europe. Presently I will read on Wikipedia the Pyramids were build by Western European People on vacation in fusty Egypt.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.212.35 (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of recently added info
A large photo of a small and always minor sculpture (always small and always crudely carved as against "fine art") took the place of one of the most significant works of Romanesque sculpture, the Tympanum at Vezelay. The information about this minor work, the Sheela Na Gig, although an interesting subject in itself, was shoved into the article in such a way that it wan entirely out of context. It interrupted the paragraphs that attempt to describe the major sources, styles and subjects of all Romanesque sculpture. Sheela Na Gig is (a female holding her vagina open) is a fascinating subject in itself, but it does not constitute the most significant subject to be carved on Romanesque churches. If the person who introduced this had read a little further and informed themselves more about the subect, they would perhaps have found a rather better place to put it, in the paragraphs that deals specifically with lewd representations on the exterior of Romanesque churches. Amandajm (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ransom theory
Removed from refs, as not used. Much too specific for further reading. But interesting & might go somewhere: Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Mary Curtis Webb Ideas and images in twelfth century sculpture, https://lib.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/001/879/684/RUG01-001879684_2012_0001_AC.pdf, privately published (2012)

Notes and references
There was a recent battle with an editor that kept trying to change "Notes" to "Bibliography". While the editor may or may not have been disruptive, it seems to me they had a point. There are "Notes", often used as "footnotes" and then there are "Citations" or "References". This article seems to be somewhat mixed - "Notes" is used for footnotes and also citations/references, while there is also a "References" section with a couple of references that may or may not have been called out in the text. I suggest changing "Notes" to "Citations" or "References" and changing the present "References" section name to "Further reading". (Others may see no issues in need of attention.) Bdushaw (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Aaaargh, no! The names vary, but one clearly-established point is that where you have "Notes" and "References", the latter with titles of books etc, the references ARE used in the text citations. If they are not, then they go in "Further reading". Like most editors, I don't like using "Bibliography", which suggests a degree of completeness we rarely have. And that should be only be used as an alternative to "References", NEVER for the reflist citations. Johnbod (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK! The issue properly considered at least, rather than a revert war... Bdushaw (talk) 09:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)