Revision 18709 of "Talk:Leonardo_da_Vinci" on enwiki

{{AIDnom}}

This is the article of the week for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check]], which aims to add references to Wikipedia articles
<sup id="fn_1_back">[[#fn_1|1]]</sup>. As such, I've been adding some refs to books via the Google Print service. Two errors found so far<sup id="fn_2_back">[[#fn_2|2]]</sup>:

====Note format====
*<cite id="fn_1">[[#fn_1_back|Note 1:]]</cite> da Vinci's employment with Ludovico Sforza commenced in 1478, not 1482 as previously stated. [http://print.google.com/print?id=qnLeXBbTyvYC&pg=33&sig=Oy79Vv2KPORO67j5Fjbohrksn-M]
*<cite id="fn_2">[[#fn_2_back|Note 2:]] da Vinci's father's occupation was wrongly stated, according to [http://print.google.com/print?id=whGpOhDi_ioC&pg=19&sig=WBlB5YYOHkVWOLiJfYv1RwF0YIw]
--[[User:Neoconned|Neoconned]] 06:33, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
----
:''Leonardo appears to never have had intimate relations with women and was once anonymously accused of homosexual contact with a 17 year old model, but considering that the same was said of [[:Michelangelo|Michelangelo]] and of other artists too, this seems to be more a popular legend than a fact, originated perhaps because of detailed frequent paintings or sculpting of naked men.''

What was said of Michelangelo? That he didn't have relations with women and that he was anonymously accused of homosexual relations? What exactly is being dismissed as legend here? I tried a different phrasing. --AxelBoldt

-----
From the main page:
:''It is been proven that he is not homosexual at all.''
Lacking more information about this proof, I removed this sentence. [[user:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]]

----

Seeing [[User:Zoe|Zoe]]'s deletion about the unfinished monumental horse in Milan, perhaps it would be a good idea to list da Vinci's accomplishments, separated into completed & proposed. (da Vinci had a long list of incomplete projects, which suggest to me that he had [[Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder|ADD]]. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]]

EH?  I didn't delete anything about the horse, it's still there. -- [[User:Zoe|Zoe]]

:Er, well, when I was looking at the history of the article to see what you changed, I thought I saw that you deleted that paragraph. I looked again: it ''is'' in the current version. Sorry for the mistake. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]]

----
Does anybody know by whom and when da Vinci's portrait was drawn? [[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]] 21:38 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
----
''In 1502 Leonardo da Vinci produced a drawing of a single span 720-foot (240 m) bridge''

:Erm, which is it?  720' or 240m?  The units don't match up.  [[User:DanKeshet|DanKeshet]]

==Disambiguation lunacy==

Fair dinkum, this disambiguation mania has got to stop. It is utterly riduiculous for us to walk around pretending we are making a real encyclopedia when we do stupid 5th-grade stuff like starting an entry on someone of the stature of Leonardo by pointing to a bloody ''cartoon character'', of all things. 

Sure, have a page at [[Leonardo da Vinci (disambiguation)]] if that seems justified. But in this case there are three good reasons not to go into silly mode. 

* (a): The original Leoanardo is vastly more famous and more important than any cartoon character. (Lest you say "what about Mickey Mouse", remember that even Mickey has only been famous for less than a century, and can reasonably be expected to become less famous over time - a proces that has already started. Leonardo has been famous for vastly longer, and can reasonably be expected to ''still'' be famous long after Mickey Mouse is just a footnote to history, and the Ninja Turtles are utterly forgotten.)

* (b) The original Leoanardo is indeed the original - i.e., this Leonardo is the one that the others are named after. 

* (c): No reasonable person would expect to find a mutant ninja turtle here at this page. ''Least surprise'' rule, remember?   

Sorry for the rant, but there has been quite a bit of this absurd nonsense lately, and I just spat the dummy. [[User:Tannin|Tannin]] 00:57, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The original Leonardo is vastly more famous to you and me.  To every user? I think not.  A "reasonable person" might expect to find the turtle here, if they were 10 years old (as a portion of our users are).  Not only that, but I fail to see how the article is harmed by a mild, inobtrusive notice.  I agree that the artist is by far the more important; that's why he deserves the page [[Leonardo]] while others are relegated to [[Leonardo (description)]].  However, people do use Wikipedia for stuff other than fine art. [[User:Meelar|Meelar]] 01:04, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sure. Some people are lamentably ill-educated (something for which television, and American television in particular can take a great deal of the blame, by the way). However, it is not our task to pander to the ignorant by reducing the Wikipedia to the level of the lowest common denominator. Leonardo da Vinci's significance is ''far'' greater than that part of it attributable to his artistic talents alone. 

The harm this trivial and obtrusive notice does is obvious: it distracts the reader's attention away from the subject matter of the article, and demeans and trivialises an important subject. If you absolutely ''must'' mention ninja turtles in this context, then at least have the decency to do so at the foot of the article where it is not so offensive. But in the hope that you will find this more acceptable, instead of moving the offending line this time, I'll simply delete it. Replace it at the foot if you insist (I argue against that too, but not terribly strongly) but I will continue to remove this silliness from the head of the article as often as necessary. [[User:Tannin|Tannin]] 10:17, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:I have re-added the notice.(with a slight change in phrasing).  I do not find the argument against it to be persuasive.  
:(1) importance - not a reason not to provide a disambig notice; they are for providing links to other possible meanings of the term searched for.  The relative importance of the meanings is not a factor, the ambiguity is. 
:(2) this is the original - also, not a factor, the point is to fix ambiguity, not to make any claim about derivative or original status. 
:(3) wouldn't expect to find anything else at this page - at the page "Leonardo da Vinci", probably not; at the page "Leonardo"(which is a redirect here), absolutely - it's the name of more than one entity - that is, it's ambiguous. 
:(4) distracts the reader's attention - in a small way, but it is a case of ambiguity, and for those who are looking for other Leonardos, it is more helpful than the mild distraction of a one line notice.
:(5) demeans and trivializes - no.  possibly the existence of other entities(especially pop culture ones) with the name Leonardo "demeans and trivializes" him, but making it possible for someone to search for "Leonardo" and find what they are looking for does not.  It is merely and simply a way of fixing a article title(Leonardo) which is ambiguous.  It has nothing to do with fine art, cartoon characters, originality, importance or any of the above; it's just a disambiguation. [[User:JesseW|JesseW]] 22:24, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

::? Why have that disambiguation notice '''here''', where it does look absurd? If this is all about people being able to find the Ninja Turtle by typing in "Leonardo", which I agree is desirable, that'll be better achieved by turning the redirect [[Leonardo]] into a disambiguation page, surely. I just have, and am removing the notice from the top of this Featured article. (Do we '''want''' to look ridiculous? No? Well, then.) Most people looking for Leonardo da Vinci won't type merely "Leonardo", even if that '''was''' his full name--it's not how he's usually referred to--so the inconvenience of that leading to a disambig page is minimal.--[[User:Bishonen|[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] [[User_talk:Bishonen|(talk)]]]] 21:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

::Just want to note here that there is a Brazilian football (soccer) whose full name is [[Nascimento de Araujo Leonardo]], but he is known simply as ''Leonardo''. I added him to the disambig page... but maybe we should move the disambig page to [[Leonardo (disambiguation)]] and change the notice on this page to say
:::''This page is about the artist. For other entities named Leonardo, see [[Leonardo (disambiguation)]].''
:: Then we will not need to worry about the "stupidity" of "ninja turtle" appearing on this article, and the disambig message would become similiar to [[Raphael]]'s. That just makes more sense.  --[[User:Dryazan|Dryazan]] 19:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

== sorting names in categories ==

Why is Leonardo da Vinci sorted in the categories by "Leonardo" and not "Vinci"? --[[User:ContiE|Conti]]|[[User talk:ContiE|&#9993;]] 21:56, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:Leonardo is his name; Vinci is the place where he was born and not a surname in the common English sense. [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] | [[User talk:Fredrik|talk]] 23:41, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

::Thanks for the answer :-) --[[User:ContiE|Conti]]|[[User talk:ContiE|&#9993;]] 01:58, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

==Da Vinci Code==

Has anybody considered mentioning the book 'The Da Vinci Code' anywhere in the article? I'm not sure if it is appropriate, but maybe it should be written about? I'd like to know what parts of the book are truth, what parts are fiction, and what parts are exaggerated. -- [[User:Prodigaldruid|[[user:prodigaldruid|Prodigaldruid]]-[[talk:prodigaldruid|<small>Talk</small>]]]] 13:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:I too would like to know what parts of the book were true/exaggerated/fiction--but this should be written up in the [[Da Vinci Code]] article, not the Da Vinci article. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus]] 17:21, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whereas it is agreed upon that Dan Brown's mention should mainly be in article on da vinci code, a fleeting mention is warranted here too and thus i have done the needful.

Just because you say it's agreed upon, doesn't mean it is.  Clearly stated
by Antandrus, the Davinci code and its "conjecture" should be in the [[Da Vinci Code]] writeup.  Please, let's try and realize that Dan Brown's work of [[Fiction]] is probably the worst way to go about expanding Leonardo's life and works (aka. [[Non-fiction]]).[[User:Sp00n17|Sp00n17]] 13:28, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While I don't think that extensive details about 'The Da Vinci Code' belong here, I do think that one sentence and a link would be appropriate. --[[User:Arcadian|Arcadian]] 01:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:The following is already in the page within the '''In fiction''' section 
::"Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code revolves around a conspiracy which is hinted at in Leonardo's Last Supper." 
:So, was there something else you wanted to add?  I'm confused. --[[User:Sp00n17|sp00n17]] 03:47, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

==Image caption==
The picture at the top badly needs a more informative caption. Is it a self-portrait? Is it a portrait by someone else, and then by whom? What year is it from? Where can the original be found today? [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] | [[User talk:Fredrik|talk]] 11:48, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)