Talk:Sant'Agostino, Rome

Caravaggio is Baroque
I am the first to agree that categories can be arbitrary, and Caravaggio himself would not have referred to himself as mannered or baroque. I think categories should help orient us to differences. Clearly Caravaggio was different than most of his precursors, and certainly from his mentor Cavaliere d'Arpino. I find D'Arpino mannerist: he seems to be assaying contortions and crowding in his painting. I find mannerism is an art of seeing how many classical greek statues one can quote in one canvas. Or perhaps it was Michelangelo's comment on Vasari's boast on completing the Cancelleria palace frescoes in record time. I see, said Michelangelo, I see. Finally, Wittkower's book on Italian art 1600-1750 starts with Baroque and ends with either proto-neoclassicism or rococo. Freedberg's circa 1600 also points to the change that has occurred with the works of Caravaggio and Caracci, these are not mannerist works, they are a new trend. The new trend is called Baroque. Rococo1700 (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * NewOSAlogo.png

Rfc about navigation for mobile users within caption
Within the article "Sant'Agostino, Rome" in mobile view the navbox Monuments of Rome vanishes. The mobile user cannot learn that "Sant'Anastasia al Palatino" is the next landmark. I suggest to append to the caption of the image the link to the next landmark listed in Monuments of Rome: The next landmark is Sant'Anastasia al Palatino. Is this article navigation method allowed? Ruedi33a (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * First, I don't see any reason why you need to start a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC for this - and even if there were, this is the wrong venue. Since the same problem (non-visibility of the navbox) occurs at many pages (such as Archbasilica of Saint John Lateran, Santa Maria Maggiore, Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls, etc.), the problem is not specific to this one article, so the article's talk page is not appropriate. Reports of problems with individual navboxes belong on the talk page for that navbox, in this case it would be Template talk:Monuments of Rome; general problems concerning all navboxes would go at Template talk:Navbox, and so on.
 * Second, what exactly do you mean by "next landmark"? Are you on some kind of walking tour? As far as I can tell, the only reason that Sant'Agostino and Sant'Anastasia al Palatino are placed adjacent to one another is that of alphabetical ordering. If you walked from Sant'Agostino to Sant'Anastasia al Palatino, you would surely pass Sant'Andrea della Valle on the way, so they're not even physically adjacent. Why, therefore, is Sant'Andrea della Valle not the "next landmark" after Sant'Agostino? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Further: although in your initial post you merely suggest the addition to the caption, going on to ask Is this article navigation method allowed? I notice that you had already made, and I now find that you had also made [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ruedi33a?offset=20220605153000&namespace=0 similar edits to several other articles]. You therefore appear to be seeking consensus after the fact, and since several articles are involved, this whole discussion should have been held centrally and not at the talk page of one article picked at random. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For me this is a standard BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to suggest an improvement for a known, growing but ignored problem: the increasing majority of our users are mobile users and they do not see any information that is within a navbox. In this special case the revert was a big problem as it did not come. But now we are in a standard process. I will close this RFC by myself if no positive comments come. I will delete all the corresponding changes I made if the RFC is rejected. Ruedi33a (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD is good, we like that. But no part of it says to jump straight for RfC - indeed, neither RfC nor Requests for Comment are mentioned at all. RfC is not an instrument of first resort.
 * I suggest that you remove the tag, discuss in the normal way, and make sure that you either choose a more suitable venue or, if you must discuss it here, ensure that neutrally-worded notifications  are placed on a few appropriate pages, directing people here and making it clear that multiple pages are affected, not just this single article. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ruedi33a: Would a Sequence resolve this? --N8wilson 14:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @N8wilson: Great suggestion, thanks. I did not know this template up to now. I have to test it. My suggestion with "next landmark" in the caption is revoked as Sequence is better. I will delete all my corresponding changes. I will close this RFC in 24 hours. Ruedi33a (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Per its documentation, is used to navigate through a sequence of articles, allowing an article of a series to link to the article before it and the one after it - this would require an ordered series to be established, which brings me back to my question of 09:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC) (which hasn't been answered yet) i.e. what exactly do you mean by "next landmark"? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure thing @Ruedi33a. You may also find it helpful to look through some examples of how Sequence is currently being used. Per Redrose64's comment, it sounds like there might still be some confusion to sort out in that respect. --N8wilson 21:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to all contributors. I have learnt a lot:
 * the caption is not the right place
 * "next" must be defined
 * an RFC is the wrong way to discuss this kind of problem
 * sequence seems to be the right way

Based on Requests for comment I close this RFC as the poster and remove the. As the suggestion with "links in a caption to the next landmark" was denied I will remove the code where it was used by me. Ruedi33a (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sant'Agostino (Rome) - Interior HDR.jpg