Talk:Sicilian Baroque/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

  • Giano, I hope my tweaks at this stage aren't just irritating and premature. If I'm in the way, I count on you to tell me to hold off a while. Prime questions: where was the money coming from, among the building class? Not just olives grain and wine, surely? Church patronage: were the early C18 builder-bishops Sicilian aristocrats themselves? Reurbanization schemes along Baroque lines will be something you'll address, I figure. Scagliola? --Wetman 22:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No please help out - don't worry too much about my spelling I tend to fix that when I'm nearly finished, or the great blocks of Italian and French text, I put them in as memos to myself, they'll leave when I'm done. The money is a good point, well they were not taxed until 1811, and the aristos of Angevin,Spannish or Italian descent owned all the land, in reality governed and the people were completely at their whim, and until 1800s the Norman feudal structure was in effect still in place. Primogeniture ensured estates were kept together, all the poor relations lived together in one of the family's houses, which were usual a rabbit warren, often being mistaken for superior servants which in effect they were. Most families had more than one house, Lampedusa had (I think) 7. The unluckier daughters became nuns as this was cheaper than a dowry. The nobility rented the land to entrepreneurs who in turn rented to the peasants, there was so much land that even at a low rent there was a good income, plus the almost free labour. This all came to an end in 1860 with the red shirts. The Sicilian nobles were Europe's last truly feudal society, but any form of trade, even the law was totally unthinkable until well into the 1920s.

Yes, the clergy were mostly younger sons, and yes there has to be a section on town planning, I have an early urban map which will be loaded soon. Giano | talk 06:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When can we expect this article to be renamed Sicilian Style Baroque? --Wetman 15:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it, Wet Style Man! Bishonen | Style 16:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetic judgement calls[edit]

In a couple of places in the article we encounter things like the following:

"While each facade of Quattro Canti is pleasing to the eye, as a scheme it is out of proportion to the limited size of the piazza, and like most other examples of early Sicilian Baroque can be considered provincial, naive and heavy-handed, compared to later developments."

Whose opinion is this? I don't know much about architecture, so there is no way for me to tell if this is the kind of thing that would appear in an undergrad textbook or if it is the sentiment of a particular critic, or of the editors of this article. It sounds like an aesthetic preference, and needs some kind of attribution. Jkelly 20:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppinion of Prof. Anthony Blunt "Sicilian Baroque" Page 31
I think in an article as long as this, eventually one has trust that the writer has read the listed reference books. There are many footnotes to things which I personally think may be contraversial, or not understood by a non Italian. If every statement illustrating the development of the subject is footnoted then the page will soon start to look like a sudoku rather than an article. Finally, there are so many illustrations on the page, not to make the page look pretty, but to better illustrate the development of Sicilian Baroque from a provincial form of architecture to a higher art form. Giano | talk 10:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concern. Allow me to make a suggestion. In a footnote referencing the first aesthetic judgement, add a note saying something like "For this, and other discussion of the development of the style, see reference". The danger there is that other editors may then add their own opinions to the article and the reader is unlikely to be able to differentiate between what is a professional judgement and a personal opinion, but it would avoid having a forest of footnotes. Jkelly 19:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


"Baroque", "Norman", etc.[edit]

I have just now slightly tweaked the section "Characteristics of Sicilian Baroque". I hope this and an earlier tweak are for the better; if anyone hereabouts disagrees, please change them back accordingly. As part of this, I've reluctantly changed one "baroque" to "Baroque" with the aim of consistency -- but I've no idea why "baroque" should be capitalized. I've left "Norman", although my (limited) knowledge of Sicilian architecture tells me that Sicily has a wonderful array of romanesque architecture, I think romanesque is what is meant, and romanesque is perhaps a commoner term than norman when not discussing NW Europe. This has also been my excuse for leaving "Norman Gothic": does this mean (i) gothic, or (ii), more elaborately, genuine gothic (not to be confused with gothick, gothic revival, etc.)? Or does it mean something else? -- Hoary 14:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article refers several times to "Norman Gothic" - is this Norman architecture? In English, the Norman style another term for Romanesque, and is associated with round arches. It was followed by Gothic architecture, which differs in having pointed arches. Is Sicilian Norman somehow a mix of the two?....dave souza 19:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an interesting question, Of course the Normans era varies acording to political viewpoint for quite a long time, in England from circa 1053 - 1154, and for longer in Sicily and as always architecture was changing, as you so rightly point out. Have a look at Norman architecture and then Cefalù, as you will see it does not quite fit the British perception of the name, even less so Monreale. Then see a Norman building [1] reminiscent of the Papal palace at Avignon. Finally see the Norman cathedral at Messina and there is a beautiful pointy arch above the main entrance, however that one was rebuilt circa 1900 albeit in its original style. The Normans ruled Sicily from 1055? until 1194. The transition between Norman/Romanesque was gradual and slow, and sometimes its debatable as to if a building is Gothic or Romanesque. The dates of the Norman/Romanesque period are seen rather differently depending on where on was taught one's history. There was obviously a period of transition in Europe generally between Romanesque and Gothic (I'll write a stub Norman Gothic in the next couple of days which will be easier than explaining it here) basically (IMO) I think the Gothic era began in France with Chartres circa 1160, but pointed arches had begun to appear as early as 1135 the Cathedral of St. Denis near Paris I think may be the most notable example of this. So you see there was quite an overlap from Romanesque to Gothic architecture while the Normans were still in power. This is what is generally understood as Norman Gothic. Giano | talk 22:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds interesting, however I think you're confusing the period when Normans were in power with the label Norman architecture which, rightly or wrongly, was coined to refer to a particular style in Normandy and England. Modern scholarship tends to utilise the equally invented term Romanesque architecture for this style, while acknowledging the widespread English language usage, "In England, Romanesque architecture is often termed 'Norman architecture'." I'd not previously heard of "Norman" being used for the rather different style in Sicily, which from the examples you cite looks like a variation of the continental Romanesque style. As the Cefalù article says, "This style of Norman architecture would be more accurately called Sicilian Romanesque." As with any categorisation of style, there are hybrid examples, and even the typically English Norman Durham Cathedral, begun 1093, features pointed arches (over the nave) from around 1130. The unusual usage of "Norman" for Sicilian Romanesque needs to be clarified and its characteristics defined on the Norman architecture page, and it would be useful to know which scholars use the term "Norman Gothic", with references. As you'll be aware the links to Norman point to a disambiguation page which is bad practice, and needs to be resolved. By the way, my old textbook by Nikolaus Pevsner states that "Whoever designed the choir of St. Denis [foundation laid 1140, consecrated 1144], one can safely say, invented the Gothic style, although Gothic features had existed before, scattered here and there". ...dave souza 19:30, 4 November 2005 (

Norman is not a term applied solely to buildings in Normandy and England. Norman Gothic is a term used quite widely outside those countries. Here's a link to help explain the term. Norman Gothic I see you now realise the Normans did indeed build pointed arches. As Pevsner so rightly says Gothic existed before St. Denis. However, I think Pevsner's dates may be a little askew, a mere 4 years between foundation stone and consecration, I know you are keen to prove a point, but 4 years! No you are mistaken here's a link [2] stating the west facade was begun in 1137. Also when I refereed to St. Denis. as 1135, in the message above my source was "World Architecture. (1963)". Hamlyn. Which is (IMO) one of the definitive architectural text books. When referring to "Norman Gothic in the context of this article I don't think the term unreasonable Sicily's Norman cathedrals (built during Sicily's Norman era) are world famous, and frequently referred to as Norman hence when they show Gothic characteristics, it is perfectly natural they should be referred to as Norman Gothic in that context. Giano | talk 22:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC) UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the links and further information. Unfortunately the link you give for "Norman Gothic" relates to an article on "ENGLISH GOTHIC CATHEDRALS", and as it says, "Norman architecture has been aptly described as powerful and masculine. It is marked by semicircular arches everywhere..[etc.]". From this example the term "Norman Gothic" would be more appropriate and clearer if replaced by "Norman". It would be helpful to have links showing use of the term outside an English context. I did not say or mean to imply that Norman architecture had no pointed arches: as you say in this article, to define the style you have to "appraise the composition as a whole". Pevsner's dates refer specifically to the choir of St. Denis, not the west facade begun in 1137, a point reiterated in Gothic architecture#Origins as "The first truly Gothic construction was the choir of the church, consecrated in 1144." The term "Norman architecture" in normal English usage conjures up images of round arches with abstract decoration, as in the top illustration here [3]. While the relevant Sicilian architecture was built under the Normans, if they were building in the Gothic style as were the largely Norman rulers of England (not Goths!) the term Gothic is more relevant. Since Sicilian usage of "Norman" appears to imply a different style to what Pevsner calls "The Norman style in architecture, the most consistent variety of the Early Romanesque in the West", the term "Romanesque" would be clearer and more informative for many readers, and "is characterized by a use of round or slightly pointed arches". If you insist on using "Norman" and "Norman Gothic", the differences need to be spelled out. I hope you can clarify this. ...dave souza 13:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for pointing out the ambiguous links, I didn't know that. I have written a brief paragraph at Norman architecture covering Sicily, albeit rather superficially. Which now links to "Sicily's Norman architecture" at a suitable place in the text. Sicily's Norman period lasted from circa 1070 until about 1200, debatably perhaps until the demise of Frederick II, in 1250. During that period it is fair to describe all buildings as Norman, during the latter half of that same period the Gothic style evolved, hence there was a Norman Gothic. I'm pleased you have now conceded that the Normans did build pointed arches and windows, even in England the term Norman Gothic is today used as the first of the style's four phases - Norman Gothic, Early English Gothic, Decorated Gothic, Perpendicular Gothic so we have achieved something.
Sicily's version of Norman did include some Byzantine and Eastern features. However, Sicily does refer, and quite legitimately too to this period as Norman, the style is similar to that which is the English and their commonwealth understand as Norman in more ways than it differs. You see England does not have a monopoly on the term. I do not think lengthy explanations here are necessary beyond what is said already. One day a full explanation will hopefully be at Norman architecture. This page covers Sicily's Baroque style in depth. The page is already far longer than many editors like. I do not like the term Romanesque here, as I think that it is a confusing term to people who are not particularly interested in the subject, it implies Romans etc. which immediately conjures up pillars, porticos, temples and bath houses to many people. Most people have a vague idea of Norman architecture and the rough dates when it was built. If this explanation is still inadequate for you then please edit the page to suit your requirements and beliefs. Finally, I wouldn't rely too heavily on Pevsner. While very knowledgable and highly published, I always use him, and quote him as my expert witness on Wikipedia, and elswhere when I want to exert my own POV, as he can generally be relied on for that. As a Wikipedia editor he would have been banned for POV before the project arose from the ground. Giano | talk 18:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. As you suggest, I will try to edit a few minor changes to make the article clearer to those from north-west Europe and former colonies, as well as Hoary above. From what you say, I think that by "Norman Gothic" you mean Norman style Romanesque with Gothic features, and would suggest replacing the term by "Norman with Gothic features", with a bit of explanation at the outset that during the period of Norman rule the style absorbed Gothic influences. If what you mean is full-blown Gothic during the period of Norman rule, do comment here. A couple of points: I refer to Pevsner simply because there's a copy of his An Outline of European Architecture on my bookshelf, and as it's a 1963 edition I'm sure that scholarship will have developed since then. I do keep up with TV programmes, articles etc. and would be surprised to find the term "Norman Gothic" being used in England. The article [4] showing it as "the first of the style's four phases - Norman Gothic, Early English Gothic...etc." is by "Istituto Comprensivo "C. Bassi" di Castel Bolognese (RA) Scuola Media "G. Ungaretti" di Solarolo", and strikes me as an attempt to fit Norman into a thesis about Gothic architecture. There's another earlier phase, "Saxon". I do agree that these terms are terribly Anglo-centric, which I'll try to sort a bit on Norman architecture, and that Romanesque architecture is perhaps a bit misleading to those who haven't come across the term, but we're here to educate so a reference to Norman being a Romanesque style might be helpful. ...dave souza 11:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This University of Leicester site [5] explains the term "Norman Gothic" . Do what you like, I shan't be around very much for the next week or so, so have fun - all of you! Giano | talk 11:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suitably astounded – well, there's always one. Note that the page links to "a more detailed look at... the history of architecture" which shows the more traditional periods. Anyway, I take the above as your confirmation that Norman Gothic = Norman. Have a nice holiday, ...dave souza 17:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering and images[edit]

Oh dear, Wikimedia's preprocessor (HTML/CSS generator) seems to require that images are typed on new lines; but typing an image on a new line messes up the numbering in what will be HTML ordered lists. Or more simply: my latest version has improved image placement (at least if your browser works as mine does) but has screwed up the list a treat.

Suggestion: wait till the list of characteristics has settled down (perhaps it has already), and then number it "manually": "1.", "2.", etc., rather than "#", "#" etc. -- Hoary 11:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too be honest: why bother with the numbering at all? This is the first article that I see it in (granted, I don't watch that many articles per day, but still..), and I don't see any added value.. maybe somebody could explain it here? Mystman666 09:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not Claus[edit]

There's obvious inconsistency in the article in referring to saints, in names of churches and cathedrals and perhaps also elsewhere.

The article consistently uses Italian, rather than "Saint", "Saints", "St", or whatever's the plural of "St". Good so far. Now, my stupid-anglophone-tourist level of Italian tells me that nominative forms include and perhaps aren't limited to:

  • San
  • Santa
  • Sant'
  • Santi
  • Sante

Should "San", for example, be "San", "S", or "S."? If this article were riddled with saints' names, I'd recommend "S"; but as it isn't, I don't have any strong opinion. Wondering what English-language books that can be presumed to have been carefully edited would do, I reached for Lorenzetti (trans. Guthrie), Venice and Its Lagoon. This uses English names a lot ("St. Mark", etc.); but when it does use Italian names it seems always to spell out the "saint" part ("San Stae", etc.). (Surprisingly, it routinely abbreviates other personal names, e.g. "Franc. Lazzari".) Perhaps spelling out "Santa", etc. would be friendlier for Italian-language-impaired anglophone readers, but I'm open to suggestions that other considerations make it better to abbreviate. Ideas? -- Hoary 07:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know? I never go to church in English. I would have though it should be (as this is English) when refering to a former person Saint Fred and Saintess Freda. Except a place name where the Italian should be used. I wrote the stubes for most of the saints here, I'll go and have a look at what I did there. Giano | talk 08:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I never go to church in any language! (I go to plenty of churches -- most recently in the splendidly baroque city of Vilnius -- but that's different.) We have:

  • The Cathedral of San Giovanni Battista
  • the church of Santa Maria di Porto Salvo
  • The cathedral of San Giorgio' Modica
  • the Church of San Giorgio
  • the church of Santa Maria delle Scale
  • church of S. Giuseppe
  • the church of S. Caterina
  • church of S. Agata
  • The Church of Anime Ss. Del Purgatorio

Et cetera. I'd be inclined to talk of the chiesa/Chiesa di San/S/S. Giovanni Battista [hope I got that right] (and of a painting that shows (St [sans dot]) John the Baptist). But OK, let's have churches and cathedrals. Or should we have Churches and Cathedrals? I vaguely thought the standard abbreviation of Santa was Sta(.), but surely Giano knows what he's doing; still, "Santa" might be "user-friendlier" to anglophones than "S.", and if we have "Santa" (spelled out) then I suppose we should have "San", "Santi" and the rest. But I hesitate to make changes because I haven't even made my own mind up about what I think is best. Giano? -- Hoary 11:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just Anglicise the lot to St.Fred and St.Freda. some one has emailed me to say the English don't have saintess,which is a pity because I rather like the term. The whole thing is becoming as Purgatorio as it is Giano | talk 11:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, please, let's not! I mean, what's the English version of, say, S. Zita? (St Zeta-Jones, perhaps?) Whatever it is, WP's anglophone readers would probably have to translate back when confronted with maps of Sicily. -- Hoary 11:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sure whatever we decide here, there will be a naming convention somewhere which says something different, if there is not, then someone will soon dream one up, and have edless arguements and tantrums on the subject, then bring a revert war here with them. I honestly don't mind you choose, Saint, San, Santa, St. of S. its all the same to me. Just to clarify men are "San", lady saints are "Santa", unless there Christian names (either sex) begin with an "A" then it becomes "Sant' Ambrose" or "Sant' Agata". Sta. is more Spanish than Italian, when abbreviated S. will do fine for both sexes. (Blunt does this in Sicilian Baroque) Of course you could always translate the lot San Giorgio could become St George, San Giacomo - St James and so on. I'm not sure who Santa Zita becomes, but I do remember from my more religious, and Sicilian, youth that she was supposed to be very helpful if you .lost your car keys. Giano | talk 12:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Zita sounds like a Genuinely Useful Saint -- enough for me to consider becoming Christian. If I had a car, that is. (I don't.) OK, I'll revise accordingly. And then let's have an edit war with each other. No, better than that, I'll have an edit war with myself. Yow! -- Hoary 14:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New cities (outside Sicily)[edit]

From the "New cities" section, I've removed two examples from English American, and a great chunk about non-Sicilian Europe. More precisely, I've left them in but put them within SGML comments. They certainly belong somewhere, and I encourage somebody to move them accordingly. But I don't think they belong, or even help, here. -- Hoary 09:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The context of the new baroque city planning in Sicily is undoubtedly unfamiliar to the average reader and needs to be returned, so that the reader can make sense of what was new in Sicily and where it was coming from. A few brief digressions here and there help set Sicilian baroque in a broader picture, a feature of all good Wikipedia articles covering cultural movements. --Wetman 10:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me the removal of the non-Sicilian European bit leaves a very noticable hole, in that the sentence "In Sicily, public opinion..." is based on the removed discussion. The paragraph frankly doesn't make sense in its shortened form: if the non-Sicily cities go, the only logical thing would be to remove the next sentence also. However, I agree with Wetman about the importance of context, so I would rather put it all back: the "chunk" wasn't that big, but just enough to set the scene for how Sicily was different. Bishonen | talk 11:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I've trimmed it slightly. I leave the job of selecting the best north American examples to somebody else (see the SGML comment). -- Hoary 09:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about the workers?[edit]

We read: In Sicily, public opinion (the public being the peasantry) counted for nothing. But there were also merchants and storekeepers (as admitted in the article itself). Moreover, since this building predated the paradise [hollow laugh] enjoyed by the labourers working on the vulgarest most "prestigious" architectonic expressions of wealth today, the workers wouldn't have been bussed in: there'd have been an artisan class. I'm sure that all together they'd have been outnumbered by the peasants, but the article's a bit too pat. If it's going to deal with social history, it should do so scrupulously. (Alas I lack the knowledge to fixt this myself.) -- Hoary 09:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think one has to bear in mind how under researched this subject is. Apart from one book this is the most extensive description of the subject I know of. If there is another I would love to read it - seriously!
I think the article, and all reference books on the subject, make it quite clear that Sicily was ruled by a medieval feudal system - basically people did what their upper class masters told them, and I suspect the limited middle class (no reference books mention them by the way) lived by the old adage "he who pays the fiddler calls the tune" - but that is only my opinion or my research, so it can't go in the article. I imagine half the artisans working on the reconstruction were just skilled peasants supervised by a master mason, (probably also of peasant stock). A family of masons (often really architects themselves) would arrive from Naples of Florence, set up shop and employ and train numerous peasants and pay these eventually skilled but illiterate men a pittance. When the master masons were working to an architects plan (frequently they just followed the whims of their patron) the architect would often be absent - but that too is only my opinion. One only has to check dates to see that most of the architects mentioned has several projects on the go at once and thus could not be all over Sicily at the same time - but that again is own research.
Basically Hoary to answer your question why the artisans etc. did not rise up and express their opinion I don't know, but I do know - if they did - no reference book recorded it. Giano | talk 17:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison, consider Polish Baroque, also a very distinct local development initally spurred by architects from Italy. No "public opinion" operating there either. --Wetman 20:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to both of you. Incidentally, I'll try to find more time for the article today. WP is running at about five times the speed it was running yesterday. -- Hoary 05:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, compare this to Polish Baroque, which desperately needs a Giano to take it under his wing. Ukrainian Baroque and Naryshkin baroque are a bit more developed (nots sure about the lower case "b" in the latter). As for my stubby Earthquake Baroque...
Baroque architecture is surely not that far away from being of featured quality... -- ALoan (Talk) 12:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about the gawkers?[edit]

the eager paying public, albeit American and British rather than Italian

It's yonks since I was south of Florence, and I'm ashamed to say that I've never been to Sicily. But somehow I'd expect more than token numbers of Germans, Dutch and others. Is the paying public really predominantly anglophone? -- Hoary 12:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Messina[edit]

I have heartlessly gutted a magnificent footnote on Messina. Magnificent, yes, but inappropriate in this article. However, I've plonked the entire footnote here for recycling. -- Hoary 13:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A picture was covering up a word, I think I fixed it feel free to yell at me again if I didn't do it right.

Fantastic work.[edit]

This is an absolutely incredible article. One of the best I've ever seen in Wikipedia. What marvelous pictures, what description. Thanks to all who have contributed. glasperlenspiel 19:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"governed by an extravagant and hedonistic aristocracy."[edit]

This appears in the first paragraph. Could this be explained a bit more using some more historical information. I donlt dispute it, but it sounds a bit too generic. The word hedonistic sounds a bit odd as well. Would a hedonistic society build so many churches? In other words, there is a moral criticism here. But was it not also a very exploitative aristocracy, taxing the peasants to death. This was one of the reasons Sicily and SOuthern Italy remained so desperately under developed until modern times.Brosi 14:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've changed hedonistic to egocentric. I think they were hedonistic, but I can't find a reputable author who quotes the word. It is important to remember this phrase is in the lead, which is briefly summarising the article. I think all the historical context necessary for an architectural page is explained later in this section here [6] and elsewhere in the page. I'm always meaning to do a page on the Sicilian aristocracy - a fascinating subject, full of interesting people, but have yet to find the time - I think I will make time very soon. Giano 14:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for responding so soon! I saw the text and liked it (just so that one does not get the impression that the churches were a natural extension of the region's history). But - to finish my small point - how about "extravagant and exploitative" to introduce the economic component. Will leave it up to you, since I think you know more about this than I. In a long term view, the question here is how we view the aristocracy from our post-Enlightenment position. Generally the post-Enlightenment critique of the aristocracy was a moral one, ie. they were hedonistic, ie played card games, were intersted in fashion and hair styles. went riding. etc.. While this is true, one has to also see the aristocracy as driving a hard-nosed economic machine. This is all obvious to you, I am sure, but thought it worth mentioning.Brosi 15:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "exploitative" would have the POV police here in seconds ;-), and the wealth and secularism of the church is explained. I'm not sure the Sicilian aristoctracy were driving a "hard nosed economic machine" this was and still is one of the problems which has descended to Sicily today, and until very recently the aristocracy did not even in part grasp this. The British and Nothern European aristocracy woke up to the facts of life at least two centuries before their southern Med-European counterparts. I think a page on the Sicilian Aristos needs to be written. Change it if you feel I am wrong. Giano 15:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you are on top of it. Thanks.Brosi 16:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
egocentric doesn't sound right in describing a class (as opposed to which class & when?); nor were they notably hedonistic by comparison with other groups - rather a tight-laced bunch surely, especially the women? I'm not even sure about extravagant - did any go bust, as English and French arisos were always doing? Nor were they at all large as a group compared to Poland, France, etc. Surely the point is that ownership of the land was very concentrated in a small group? The point also needs to be made that Sicily, then & until the invention of the McCormick reaper & the opening of the Middle West US over a century later, had an extremely strong economy, exporting all over the place - wheat, lemons, wine etc. Lovely article otherwise. Johnbod 11:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Exclusive and parochial in outlook" is what was intended by "egocentric", I surmise: Perhaps there is a succinct characterization of the Sicilian aristocracy in Harold Acton, The Bourbons of Naples (1734–1825) (1956) that could be substituted.--Wetman 12:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have boldly gone & made changes already, but yes that would be a better way of puitting it. Notably they had little alliegance to or interest in the larger states they were part of, & rarely left Sicily. In particular no tradition of military service, or civil service outside Sicily in any form. If Acton is succinct on the matter, that would be unusual! I think my copy is in the loft, so will leave it for others to resolve Johnbod 13:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


About "Legacy"[edit]

Who writed? This section is very inaccurate. For exemple: Some of the finest Baroque villas and palazzi, including the Palermo palace of the Prince of Lampedusa, are still in ruins following the United States bombing raids of 1943. Often no attempt has been made to restore or even secure them. Those that survived the raids in good repair are often sub-divided into offices or apartments, their Baroque interiors dismantled, divided, and sold. This is correct for XIX century, but since 1970s changed point of view about Baroque buildings, of course! Do it is inspired by A. Blunt (in Sicilian baroque, Weidenfeld and Nicolson 1968)? If yes it is an error: this pubblication is considered very old and not good...

A few years ago the Gangi Palace(*) ballroom was alone in its status of having been a film set, but today long unused salons and ballrooms are hosting corporate and public events... It is false! Movies who used Baroque palaces of Sicily are innumerable. Just for exemple movies who used Catania for location (before 2000s):

I hope someone can adjust this section...

Thanks for Your attention, Io' 81 (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(*)= Please, specify the city...

I writed, and that's [7] as far as I am going. I know from personal experience that trying to have anything restored was nothing but an uphill losing battle, until at least 2000 & even now it is over complex Giano (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Image numbering[edit]

I have reverted the good faith edits by Atilios removing the image numbers. As is explained in sections above. In such a complex (to the layman) subject as this the images and reference to them are essential. The page is closely monitored (as is evident by the speedy reversion) for vandalism and change so having the images numbered and constantly referred to in the text - presents no problems and greatly facilitates explanation.  Giano  11:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Drive by comment): To aid referrals, you could always make named divs for each image to act as an anchor, for example <div id="picture1"></div> to the Image and then just link to it with [[#picture1|a wikilink]]. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could, but (to me) to me that would be more complicated than just maintaining the simple numbered images - I struggle with all formats and syntaxes and things like that! Also, people casually reading the page might not understand what they are supposed to do either.  Giano  16:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale between new deletion of images[edit]

Adding non-hypertext "illustration" links can cause the fact that, if some editor removes an image, changes it or what else, the text is still keeping a reference to nothing, or to something wrong. A more controlled medium should be used (the fact one says its "constantly controlled" is not a guarantee: what if the editor patrolling it goes to vacation? It also happened to me to miss some awful changes to pages I gave as obvious under my control when I was away for a period from there... then, perhaps after years, I returned to them to notice the unexpected disaster!!). Anyway let mw know... (PS, if you again revert my edits, please keep the other changes and corrections I've introduced in the meantime). --'''Attilios''' (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Just a not-Italian auditorium could give this article the title of "Featured Article". Apart from some minor errors I tried to correct, it shows a general tone of having been written by people in general having just a 2nd-(even 3rd)-hand knowledge of Sicily, Italy, Italian architecture and Italian culture in general. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 07:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wrote it, and have some experience of Sicily. I have reverted your changes as it is important to have the images linked to the text. This has been discussed before and debated at length. Please do not make major changes to a FA without consultation.  Giacomo  09:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with you, but the important is that you kept the other changes I did. Did you? --'''Attilios''' (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For example is not nice to read in a "feature article" a horror like Piazza dell duomo. I also noticed you didn't restore most of my corrections and new links. Why? Did you notice for example I've just added Catania Cathedral? Ciao and good works. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Attilios, I make horrors in every language I speak, it seem to bother others more than it bother me - I learnt to deal with that as a child. From your comments above, it seem you knew I was going to revert the numbering, so it's pity you jumbled your edits up so because I have better things to do with my time than paintakingly sieve your edits. I'm sorry you don't think this would be thought good enough by our compatriots. However, the Italain version does not seem so very different [8]; I wonder who wrote that and as for the sicilianu version [9]! A sinilar version is an FA in France, so presumably they too are all as ignorant as me on matters Sicilian. So happy editing and ciao to you too.  Giacomo  16:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a repeat of precisely the same struggle as last year. Why not just permit this Featured Article to have numbered illustrations and move on from there? For me, I'd drop the word "Illustration" from the captions. But I wouldn't insist upon it. --Wetman (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite - for it's own internal consistency however shouldn't the image of the "Basilica of St. Sebastian in Acireale" be given a number? --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing[edit]

Great article, but needs a massive amount of sourcing work if it is the remain as an FA, it's mostly unsourced. I'll try to begin a referencing overhaul this week.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sicilian Baroque. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sicilian Baroque. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Sicilian_Baroque[edit]

Note this has been nominated there. Johnbod (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Why are the few available books on the subject so bloody expensive? Blunt's £200, and this, [10], goes for between £100-1000 and doesn't get the greatest reviews. A visit to the library beckons. KJP1 (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of the main problems we will encounter here. It is a very specialised subject. Not even a cheap tatty version on Amazon, and most of the internet references are based on this article. I have a copy of the Blunt book, but, sadly, it and I won’t be in the same country for some time. It’s typical Wikipedia, Randy from Boise has heard that his neighbour’s garden shed is actually the 8th architectural wonder of the World and the rest of us have to run around, wasting time, to prove it’s not. I will check out what I can as soon as I can, some of the architectural stuff is so basic it should be easily verified. Giano (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Now I look at Amazon I'm surprised how little there is, & how pricey. Amazon has -Italian Baroque and Rococo Architecture Paperback, OUP 1986 by John Varriano Paperback for £7.50 odd - that has a 30 page chapter on the South, which probably means c. 10 pages on Sicily (including pics). You can see his notes on google preview & his main source remains Blunt. I have the standard Wittkower, Rudolf, Art and Architecture in Italy, 1600–1750, Penguin/Yale History of Art, 3rd edition, 1973, ISBN 01405611161, which has some - I may do a run through of the article. And Martin, John Rupert, Baroque, 1977 (1991 Penguin edn used), Allen Lane/Pelican/Penguin/Viking - if I can find it - might have stuff. I also have Southern Baroque Art: a Study of Painting, Architecture and Music in Italy and Spain of the 17th & 18th Centuries (1924) by Sacheverell Sitwell somewhere, I think the book that got Blunt interested in the subject. That and Southern Baroque Revisited, by Sacheverell Sitwell, 1 Oct 1967 are quite cheap on Amazon. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - I shall also see what the Rylands has, and the BL when I can next get down. It will take time, but I think if we can report some progress, Randy from Boise may be kept at bay! KJP1 (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve ordered Italian Baroque and Rococo Architecture by John Varriano. £76 on Amazon and, as you say, at all sorts of lower prices, but £3.50 on Abe Books - go figure! No idea what it’s like, but it’s OUP so it should be solid for the standard stuff. KJP1 (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats great news. I feel very impotent stuck here in the back of beyond with only a spasmodic internet connection.I’m very glad though, you are managing to prove I didn’t invent the page. Thanks. Giano (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Giano - no worries at all, it’s great fun. The Rylands or the British Library will have Blunt, and that will be a great help. I’m just not coughing up £200 for Randy! KJP1 (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find this for less than £100, but it looks as if it may be useful. Giacomo Serpotta and the Stuccatori of Palermo, 1560-1790 (Studies in Architecture S.), 1 May 1984, by Donald Garstang. Do either of you gentlemen have it, or shall I ransack the library? KJP1 (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. Btw Tobriner's online preview includes a quick literature review as of when he was writing, about page 13. He was very complimentary about Maria Giuffrè, but perhaps he has to meet her at conferences. Btw, as I remember, Sitwell's original Southern Baroque Art covers mainly Bagheria villaws for Sicily, as least as far as detail goes. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't worry too much about Mr Blunt, even he made mistakes. I have a feeling he held Palazzo Ducezio Noto as the best example of transition, but it now appears the upper contrasting floor was only built a few years before Mr Blunt's book. I have removed it. Ive moved a few things about which should make the final fall and decline easier to understand. I wont keep editing to conflict you, but tell me if there's a reff you cant find. You are doing a good job. Giano (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Giano - Edit away, Johnbod and I can work around you! I think it is coming along quite well, and we’re knocking off those [citation needed] tags at a reasonable rate. I’m inclined to think the FAR coordinators will cut us some slack as progress is clearly being made. KJP1 (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, not sure how much I will be doing for a while. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing. The third para. Of the Legacy section talks of the Lampedusa palace still being in ruins. Some of the modern travel guides I’ve come across seem to suggest it’s been recently restored. But this might be one of their many other homes, or it might need updating? KJP1 (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted. It looks like the Palermo Lampedusa Palace has been turned into holiday apartments. Progress since the page was written, I suppose. Giano (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Off to Faro for a long weekend. Not much Baroque but this looks nicely ghoulish! Shall return to Sicilian Baroque next week, unless you and John have finished the cites by then. KJP1 (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harvref errors[edit]

There are citations but no sources for:

  • Magill 2013, p. 168. Harv error: link from CITEREFMagill2013 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Blunt, 1968 & throughout. Harv error: link from CITEREFBlunt1968throughout doesn't point to any citation.

The Magill 2013 seems to be coming from the one I commented out, as it was also returning a Harvref error,[11] but I don't speak this citation style and don't know how to fix it. I guess it is somehow pointing at the wrong thing? I guess it is related to the full name in the editor parameter, vs. last name used in this method, but over my head! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I’m afraid I can only do whatever the refs are called that have two little pointy arrows (<) and a back slash. I have never got to grips with the squiggle bracket ones - they totally blow my dyslexic brain to even look at them. Giano (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same here :) Someone else will fix them; not to worry about our peabrains. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trying, but failing at present. Leave it with me. KJP1 (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1 not sure if you realize you have Magill twice now ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1 where do we stand? We still have all three Harvref errors (do you have the thingamajig installed that displays harvref errors in big red bold letters?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still trying, and failing, to sort this, but will. A copy of Blunt is soon on its way from the British Library, courtesy of Mr Riley, and Varriano’s Italian Baroque from Abebooks. I think this will enable us to finish the citing, and then it should be possible to close up the FAR in a satisfactory way. KJP1 (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to the unknown IP'er who fixed the ref.s I couldn't mend! I shall tweak Magill as suggested and add page numbers for Blunt which has now arrived - thanks to Tim riley. KJP1 (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interlanguage links[edit]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone checked and added these interlanguage links ? I don't have the sources, so can't be sure these are the right people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

couple of sources[edit]

@[[KJP1]] as you have in “in use” up, I won’t edit, but the sources for

  • Only tradespeople saying Palazzo Smith etc and nobility it’s always Casa, with an upper case. Gefen p15.
  • the large amount of relation and servants etc living in the Casa|Palaxxo is also Gefen, p16.

Giano (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giano - Edit away! Have you got anything to cover the two tags in Palazzi interiors? KJP1 (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of them I’ve just covered, the other about the centre of the room ,eft empty, I should be able to find somewhere as it was common 18th century practice everywhere, marble floors or not.Giano (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

rhetes a reference to that fashion here[12], but I’m sure there’s a better one somewhere. Giano (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the other one that's proving tricky is the final para. of the Church interiors section, that mentions the nuns' choir. This, [13], doesn't quite do it, and I can't see it mentioned in Blunt. Any ideas? KJP1 (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There’s reference to it here [14] albeit obliquely. This site also explains it [15], it’s in Italian though which I suppose isn’t totally surprising for a Sicilian church.
I don't know if this helps, but this is a common/usual features of choirs in convent chapels, when the public was also admitted for services. Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod - I think it does, for which many thanks. I shall put all three in, which I think should meet the need. I'm afraid my knowledge of the goings on within convents is very limited. KJP1 (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right - keeping the male public away from the nuns was regarded as key! Johnbod (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez!!! Why don't Refill and Reflinks operate as well as they used too!?

Where are we at?[edit]

I thought it might help, me at least, to summarise what's been done and what remains to be done. I think it is the following:

Lead - Fine.
Characteristics - fully cited, Green tickY.
Early Sicilian Baroque
  • Third para., need a cite for the architectural conservatism of the Catholic Church; done Green tickY
  • Fourth para., need a cite for the Chiesa del Gesù, done Green tickY
Earthquake and patrons - fully cited, Green tickY.
New cities - fully cited, Green tickY.
New churches and palazzi
  • First para., need a cite for out-Versailling Versailles;
May have to lose that, even though it’s undeniably true, I suspect that was my POV. Shame as I rather like it. Giano (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would indeed be a pity, as it’s both accurate and nicely phrased. But 2020 FA expectations mean that we can’t end a paragraph without a cite. I’ll continue looking. KJP1 (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about this review, [19], which talks of a “decorative frenzy”? Sufficient? Or this, [20], which describes the “extravagant and gaudy” style? KJP1 (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[21], Erwin Panofsky, of whom I must confess I’ve never heard, calls it a “lordly racket, so to speak; unbridled movement, overwhelming richness in colour and composition, theatrical effects produced by a free play of light and shade”. That’s rather good. KJP1 (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourth para., need a cite for weaknesses of Cathedral of San Giorgio at Modica.
High Sicilian Baroque - fully cited, Green tickY.
Ragusa - fully cited, Green tickY.
Catania - fully cited, Green tickY.
Church interiors
  • Third para., need a cite for the nun's choir. Now done. Green tickY
Palazzi interiors
  • Second para., this could probably do with a couple of cites around the nobility's mode of living; now done Green tickY
  • Third and fourth para.s, need a few cites on interior decoration; now done Green tickY
Late Sicilian Baroque - fully cited, Green tickY
Decline - fully cited, Green tickY.
Legacy - fully cited, Green tickY.
Footnotes
  • Footnote d, on the Lampedusa casa is now the only one without a cite. Gefen?

I think we're pretty close. KJP1 (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency with the cites[edit]

Giano - We now have an issue, for which I'm largely responsible, of a lack of a consistent approach with the citations. Most are now sfn, which I know is not your preferred style! Unfortunately, it's the only one I can use. Others are in the traditional, <ref></ref>, style. Are you okay with my sfn'ing the remainder? KJP1 (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are only a couple left, so I'm just going to be bold! Feel free to shout at me. KJP1 (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Go with your preferred style and I’ll try to copy them.Giano (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! KJP1 (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I Hate SFNs, so sorry I won't be able to help in updating or maintenance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I know sfn is not to everybody’s liking. KJP1 (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration 16[edit]

Giano - The text (final para. of Church interiors), reads "The Church of San Benedetto in Catania (Illustrations 15 and 16) is a fine example of a Sicilian Baroque interior". But Illustration 16 now shows the staircase at the Palazzo Biscari. I suspect the text needs updating in line with your update of the images. KJP1 (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed, I am about to go in there and play with the images a little. They need a little freshening. Giano (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you can also find two cites, for Versailles, and Modica Cathedral, we're there! By an odd, but happy, chance, I've just found a download of Sacheverell Sitwell's Baroque and Rococo, US edition 1967. There's a nice piece on his amazement at seeing the buildings of the Noto in the 20s, when nobody even thought about them and no guidebook mentioned them. I think it will make a nice footnote. KJP1 (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And don't worry about the refs. I'll sort them. But not while you're working on it. KJP1 (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What reffs do you think we need now? I've just left a request i an edit summary to see if you can find a page number in Blunt. Also, what does Blunt have to say about Rococo in Sicily - generally it's rare or didn't happen, I hope he agrees. Giano (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need to fiind a reff for using existing ruins handicapping the architecture of the new (eg:"While Gagliardi used the same formulae he used so successfully at the church of San Giorgio in Ragusa, here in Modica the building is heavier, and lacks his usual lightness of touch and freedom of design.[citation needed]" Does Blunt have anything to say on this, perhaps around page 150? Giano (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giano - Don't sweat the citations. Just use whatever works for you. I shall tidy them up when you're done. And I will look in both the Blunt and the Sitwell for constraints caused by pre-existing structures and for rococo. Unfortunately, it'll be tomorrow as I'm out shortly and won't be back till late. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another harv ref error[edit]

  • ^ Hopkins 2014, p. 92. Harv error: link from CITEREFHopkins2014 doesn't point to any citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what I've done! It should point to "Hopkins, Owen (2014). Les styles en architecture. Dunod. ISBN 978-2-10-070689-1." which is in the bibliography. I'm lost!. Giano (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why I hate the sfn, Harvref systems :) I have a gadget installed that highlights in big red letters when they're broken, and that's the best I can do :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not terribly helpful is it? We shall have to wait for KP1 to come home. It looks right, so cant imagine why its not working. Life is a complete mystery sometimes. On a lighter note, while some unsourced stuff will have to be removed, I do have a source for the bedroom being a place for fighting sin which is jolly educational. Giano (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sumbuddy fixed it. I am editing from car, long trip, ran a script, we now have mixed en and emdashes which I will fix when home tonight. I also see duplicate refs that need to be named, will fix when home. All thumbs here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did more MOS-y stuff, fixed all dashes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's so worrisome about line breaks?[edit]

I read at WP:NBSP: "It is desirable to prevent line breaks where breaking across lines might be confusing or awkward"; and yes, I'd write "25&nbsp;kg", "Mr.&nbsp;Magoo", and so on. But recently "&nbsp;" seems to be proliferating. In this article we now have "17th and 18th&nbsp;centuries", "17,000&nbsp;British troops", "250&nbsp;years", etc etc. Why? For me, there'd be nothing even slightly confusing or awkward about a line break within any of those. Are my sensibilities dull? -- Hoary (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NB I'm not asking for the replacement of a lot of instances of "&nbsp;" by spaces (or threatening to replace them myself), merely asking questions. (SandyGeorgia?) -- Hoary (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary:, sorry; I haven't been keeping up very well (my fingers hurt :) If you notice the examples at WP:NBSP, they include items such as those you list-- the idea being to keep the number and the unit together, so we don't end up with a hanging number at the end of the line. Perhaps I am overly sensitive to detached numbers, but yes, it does seem weird to me to see a number at the end of the line with nothing attached to it, and I suppose that is why we have the guideline. (I draw the line at NBSPing of all dates-- simply impractical.)
More relevant to why I NBSP'd this particular article is that there has been some hypercriticism of late from Guild of Copy Editor types that FAC and FAR have not been watching out for this and other MOS items. For the avoidance of criticism and any problems with getting the FAR closed, it is just safer to do this sort of minor MOS-y stuff, and it takes minimal effort. I tend to wait until most copyediting is done, so those refining prose don't have to work around a lot of code. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Sandy, but MOS:NBSP isn't as clear about what is intended as it should be, and many editors get confused. The guidance about spaces in quantities is much clearer at MOS:UNITNAMES:

Use a non-breaking space ({{nbsp}} or &nbsp;) between a number and a unit symbol ... and a normal space is used between a number and a unit name. (my emphasis)

Non-breaking spaces should be used when breaking the line at that point would result in a jarring start to the following line, and that's almost the only reason. A typesetter would never start a new line with km, but would have no problem with starting a new line with kilometre – or centuries, British troops, years, etc. There are a few exceptions, such as when breaking a line at a particular point produces a cognitive disjoint in reading. For example, allowing $17 million to break at the space would let the reader take in $17 before they find the million at the start of the next line, so we prefer $17&nbsp;million. Featured articles are used as examples for other editors and should not contain such a non-mos-compliant proliferation of non-breaking spaces. They really should be removed, even if Hoary is worried about their sensibilities (which certainly are not dull). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely, more MOS WP:CREEP and pages out of sync. (Why two pages on the same thing?) Apparently my sensitivities are heightened, so I will leave it to one of you to let me know which you want removed ... which would take more time to type out than for one of you to just go ahead and remove any you don’t want, which is fine with me if fine with you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The most worrying thing is that I haven’t a clue what this conversation is about. I have never been able to use all these little codes and templatey things. Sometimes I think some people just like to make editing as difficult as possible. Giano (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, it is about making sure you don’t have to read that
Houston had a problem with Apollo
13 that cost them $14
million.
We would rather have you read that
Houston had a problem with Apollo 13
that cost them $14 million.
Not surprisingly, we have more than one Manual of Style page covering this (why?) and apparently I am overly sensitive. It comes with the swooning part. Alternately, RexxS and Hoary are dull. Don’t go there.
The rest of the story is that someone from the Guild of Copy Editors (GOCE) went through Ceoil's last TFA, and expected an FA to have not only the non-breaking space templates such as I added, but they wanted every date NBSP'd as well. So, I've been running around doing that stuff to avoid criticism ... but I refuse to put code in between every part of every date, as that would be just a preposterous amount of work. The other problem is that these pages are not in sync; the advice on MOS:UNITNAMES is from the Dates and numbers MOS, while the advice at WP:NBSP is at the main WP:MOS page, so in theory (ha!) what I have been doing is the more correct way according to the main MOS page, while we have a sub-page that offers different advice on numbers. Arrrrgh. So, long story short, what I have done looks fine to my eye, but I don't care if someone removes any of them. When MOS contradicts itself, I Am Freed :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can call me dull, of course. Keeping the two parts of a date together is debatable. Personally I see no reason why a line should not end in "17th" or begin with "centuries", but I've left them as non-breaking, to avoid further conflict. However, I have removed a number of absolutely ludicrous uses, that nobody in their right minds could possibly support. I mean, who writes this?
  • one estimate held that there were 228&nbsp;noble families, who provided Sicily with a ruling class consisting of 58&nbsp;princes, 27&nbsp;dukes, 37&nbsp;marquesses, 26&nbsp;counts, one viscount and 79&nbsp;barons
Seriously? That really is taking the mickey (to avoid a more vulgar colloquialism). Let me repeat: there's nothing wrong with ending a line with a number; there's nothing wrong with starting a line with a normal English word or a unit name; since printing was invented, the convention has always been to avoid starting a line with a unit symbol (it just looks amateurish). This isn't rocket science; it's not CREEP; it's just common sense. --RexxS (talk) 01:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, [22]. The "dull" was a joke, RexxS, and the joke was on me, for having fallen for what a GOCE editor made us do on another FA. A more collegial edit summary would look something like, "Removed unnecessary NBSPs as agreed on talk." Thanks for doing the work; it had been so nice working on this article. Did we really come this far on such a nice effort to have unpleasantry surface about non-breaking spaces that are not even visible to our readers, and that are easily removed in one edit (for which I do thank you)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Text is such a poor medium to transmit humour, Sandy, and I thought I was replying to your joke with humorous self-deprecation ("You can call me dull, of course") – would a smiley have tipped you off that I was not intending it as anything other than light-hearted? Mea culpa. Surely, we can't possibly take offence with each other now? Especially after all the work that you've done with one of His Excellency's most engaging works. I am truly sorry that my edit summary caused you offence. It was never my intention, and I really didn't know who was responsible for the 70 non-breaking spaces in the article at that point. I will try to do better in future. --RexxS (talk) 02:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rexx; perhaps we both missed humor/humour. (When I looked up "taking the mickey", I was led to "Taking the piss is a Commonwealth pejorative term meaning to take liberties at the expense of others, or to be joking, or to be unreasonable.") I sincerely appreciate your clarification and apology. I didn't do much work at all here, but I was worried all along about what kind of reaction we might see at FAR, and I was keeping an eye out for anything, however small, I could contribute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’ve had a better idea: you both leave the jokes to me, and I’ll leave all this codified stuff to you. Perhaps it’s my brain, my dyslexia, my age, my eyesight or, most likely, I’m just plain stupid, but I just can’t get my head around it. Anyway, profuse thanks to all for all the hard work here. It was beyond me. Giano (talk) 09:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brain, dyslexia, age, eyesight, stupid: I'm with you on four out of five, but I can claim an excuse :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can lay claim to all six (maths not a strong-point either). You yung'uns have some catching up to do. --RexxS (talk) 18:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am so old that Mrs G and I have reached the age where we are eating food from our freezer which has a “use before” date which predates most Wikipedian’s births. Otherwise, if we die our children will bin it and waste it. My son came to lunch the other day and wanted to see the meat wrapper because he suspected it was older than the wine. I was giving him a rather nice 1995 Haute Medoc, so I thought that rather cruel. Old age isn’t for the timid. Giano (talk) 20:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I leave the interwebs for one and a half days, I return, and, uh.... I'm sorry to read about the almost-fracas, even though that was quickly resolved. SandyGeorgia, I'm happy to see that your own judgement wasn't that all this non-breakery was needed. As for the person who allegedly does think it's necessary, I think I'll refrain from finding out who it is, as I don't have enough hours in the day to waste them on arguing against such silliness. ¶ To me, the odd thing is that so many articles becoming "Featured" would benefit from copyediting even at the time of promotion/featurization. From tomorrow's (Palmyra):
  • "The city is located in an oasis surrounded by palms"
  • "However, excavation supports the theory that the tell was originally located on the southern bank"
  • "The Triclinium of the Agora is located to [sic] the northwestern corner of the Agora and can host up to 40 person [sic]."
  • "The ruined Temple of Baal-hamon was located on the top of Jabal al-Muntar hill which oversees the spring of Efqa."
  • "The Funerary Temple no. 86 (also known as the House Tomb) is located at the western end of the Great Colonnade."
  • "it is located 48 km (30 mi) southwest of the city"
However, an earlier attempt to persuade the denizens of some MOS talk page (I now forget which) that "located" usually has no meaning and contributes nothing more than three unneeded syllables and a little pomposity was countered with some highly dubious argument appealing to what were claimed to be the conventions of geography prose, so the hell with it. ¶ Far more importantly, I'm delighted to see that this splendid article is out of danger, and is actually improved. Thank you all! -- Hoary (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary:, the near fracas was probably a good deal related to humor and familiarity, or absence of same. It's possible RexxS isn't aware of Giano's "Georgia swoon" meme, and likely no one knows of my affection for you after you defended my content at the Tourette FAC 14 years ago (which I have never forgotten) ... so I thought myself in safe territory to make a joke ("don't go there" :)
I am responsible for installing all of the NBSPs here, not knowing that the subpage (WP:MOSNUM) is at odds with the main page (WP:MOS) and because of seeing some very good FA editors being taken to task for not following WP:NBSP. I have been mostly inactive for about five years, and finding out that MOS and MOSNUM are out of sync is-- besides being typical for MOS-- liberating, since I won't need to make those stupid edits anymore. (Nor am I likely to engage WT:MOS in the hopes someone will clean up the contradiction, because we know how MOS discussions usually go.)
To your observation that prose is no longer reviewed strenuously at FAC, well ... not only that, neither is sourcing. Your located example is not atypical. Go on most recently promoted FACs and search out the instances of however, subsequently, recently, overall, a total of ... think of any common redundancy and you'll find them, even as the length of FAC reviews has mushroomed to include peer-review style prose nitpicks, while overlooking the big picture. Examination of sources is rare, and some good copyeditors have been chased out.
So, to end on a good note, it is certainly exciting to see this article, and Giano, retain the star. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey, (i) I misfixed one of my own examples. Second attempt: "The Triclinium of the Agora is located to at the northwestern corner of the Agora and can host up to 40 person people." (ii) SandyGeorgia, something 14 years ago? Back then I was still growing into my username (which now is entirely fitting). I went to take a look at it. All I can say now is that a couple of comments there have my sig and I've no ideological or stylistic reason to think that they weren't written by me; but I confess that I've utterly forgotten the matter. Fourteen years seems a very long time to wait for a link from the top page. (Incidentally, in all that time, and longer, I've not produced a single FA.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(I saw that one, too ... seriously, go take a tour of anything garnering support at FAC these days if you want to be shocked.) Well, anyway Hoary because you called out that faulty logic on length, and the oppose was struck, the FAC passed unopposed, and to this day, holds the record for the most and fastest supports period, and unopposed to boot. And curiously, we now routinely have enormous FAs-- up to 14,000 words-- which I find ridiculous. It is humbling, because as many know, I cannot write (my prose is utterly dreadful), and so many people helped. It was a collaboration. That is why the collaboration that Giano is trying to get going, after this FAR experience, is so exciting. We seriously used to work together. (I waited 14 years for TFA because I am terrified of the fuckity-fuck-fuck that is going to clobber {{Tourette syndrome}} this week.) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I felt sorry for Palmyra, so just now I fixed a single sentence. Though I suspect that "located" will soon be reinstated. ¶ Recently I've enjoyed working alone, though I'm sure that I'm missing infelicities (or worse) that others would spot quickly. -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think?[edit]

It is a pity that it wasn't possible to keep the Modica Cathedral comment, and I'm sure Giano is right that a source exists somewhere. We can keep looking. But for the purposes of the FAR, all the [citation needed] tags are now gone, and every paragraph is cited, many multiple times. The range of sources is comprehensive. If others agree I'd suggest, following SandyGeorgia's advice, that Johnbod and the rest of us indicate that we're satisfied on the FAR page, and the coordinators can then make a call on whether this is sufficient, or whether we need to move to FARC. We also ought to let Beland know, as the FAR nominator. It's been a great pleasure. KJP1 (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sorry - there is one other thing. Our anon helper noticed that the last sentence of the first para. of Palazzi interiors ends abruptly. Is it missing an example? KJP1 (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is now fixed. Giano (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see, all points are now addressed. I could play around with the page for years, but there will always be some small point or obvious fact that some poor soul has never heard of and wants referencing. Johnbod and particularly [[KJP1 have done an excellent job of finding obscure references. As the page was written mostly without references I am truly astounded at how may they have found. So huge thanks to everyone for all their hard work. Giano (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I agree our work here is done, for the moment. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hey, excellent turnaround work, everyone! -- Beland (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor oddity[edit]

These everyday living quarters, even the bedrooms of "Maestro and Maestra di Casa", were often simply decorated and furnished, although in the latter case, bedrooms were austere to assist in the fighting of sin.

I find "in the latter case" quite baffling here. I was tempted just to delete it, but stopped myself because I thought that the author might have inadvertently omitted some ingredient thanks to which the whole thing would make sense. -- Hoary (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read it as the mistress of the house’s bedroom being deliberately austere so she isn’t tempted to take lovers. One has to be familiar with the habit of the aristocracy in having separate his and hers bedrooms.Andrewdpcotton (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is exactly what the author meant but I’m sure they’ll clarify. KJP1 (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Then how about:
These everyday living quarters, even the bedrooms of Maestro and Maestra di Casa, were often simply decorated and furnished, the austerity of that for Maestra also assisting in the fight against sin.
-- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will cook something up - one has to remember, this is a Catholic country - sex is procreational never recreational! Nicely brought up Sicilian aristocrats fight their urges, they do this by avoiding naked shepherdesses and others of that ilk desporting themselves over the bedroom ceilings. Giano (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And something else. Rather suddenly:

The tax was rescinded by the British in 1812

Er, what tax? Some way above that, there is:

King Ferdinand then in 1811 imposed the first taxes, at a single stroke alienating his aristocracy.

I could simply turn "The tax was" into "The taxes introduced only a year before were", but I'd rather not depend on guesswork. (And perhaps "the first taxes" could be a bit more specific; though sorry, I lack sources.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is now clarified. Giano (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good. Thank you, Giano. -- Hoary (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More MOS trivia[edit]

MOS:FOREIGNITALICS and WP:BADITALICS; foreign phrases (unless they have become anglicized) are italicized, unless they are proper nouns. Is chiaroscuro a commonly anglicized term in English-language architecture sources, or should it be in italics? Might review throughout for same (which I did a week or so ago, but haven't done recently.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say certainly no italics - there are many terms where RS usage is very variable, but I think not here. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FAR closed[edit]

Done, [23]. (Giano, now you wait for the bot to come through to update the article milestones and remove the FAR template.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent indeed! Congrat.s Giano, a thoroughly enjoyable collaborative effort. KJP1 (talk) 17:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has been a very pleasant collaborative effort. Many thanks to you all. Giano (talk) 17:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)]][reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sicilian_Baroque/Archive_1&oldid=1091629128"