A fact from Northern Mannerism appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 March 2009, and was viewed approximately 5,997 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Czech RepublicWikipedia:WikiProject Czech RepublicTemplate:WikiProject Czech RepublicCzech Republic articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
I've added these two images to Commons, if they are of any use. They're a bit printy, as usual. The first is the design for the gold object (I presume the top bit is a lid). The second is an architectural drawing, because it struck me there's a lack of such in the article. It's not very well drawn (they don't give a date for the drawing, so I've just given du Cerceau's active dates—it looks early du C to me), but Blunt seems to think this chateau was significant. I've put reffed notes on the image descriptions. qp10qp (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I'm trying to avoid architecture totally; it worked to rather different rhythms outside France, it seems to me, and I don't know enough about it. There are bits scattered around in other articles - eg Henry II style, which could do with a rename imo. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And a rewrite! Second sentence in, and this: " Francis I and his queen, Catherine de' Medici" ... Oh, my. I rush off to change it. qp10qp (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, phew! What an odd article. I've always felt that Henry's style, in his relatively short reign, was a continuation of his father's, and that the real changes come in the later sixteenth century, when Fontainebleau is over and the French Renaissance becomes very strange. I mean, is there a stranger artist than Caron? A more solitary sculptor than Pilon? For me, the sudden rise of the Huguenots and the outbreak of the Wars of Religion is the turning point. qp10qp (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And then there's Henry IV style - don't look now! There are a whole bunch of these bitty articles around; I've added the most respectable to See also here. It reminds me why I usually prefer topics of a managable size. But I don't do architecture if I can avoid it. - Wetman & Giano are very good, though I don't know they do much this early. Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose both, and keep the long-standing titles, over the (now reverted) moves, typically done without any discussion by Dicklyon. The sources will indeed be "quite mixed", because "Northern Mannerism" and "northern mannerism", as well as "Antwerp Mannerism" and "Antwerp mannerism" will mostly REFER TO DIFFERENT THINGS, the sort of nuance this disruptive editor is as always oblivious to. In particular "Antwerp Mannerism" is NOT a local form of Mannerism, and indeed pre-dates the Italian movement. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
John, I've been studying sources to try to find "Antwerp mannerism" and "nothern mannerism" (with lowercase mannerism) referring to different topics than the topics of these articles we're discussing, but I'm not seeing it; all the lowercase ones I find appear to me to be about these exact same topics. What am I missing? Got examples? I do understand that Antwerp and Italian [Mm]annerism were distinct and independent, the term "mannerism" in each having been applied retrospectively, but don't see how that affects the capitalization question. Dicklyon (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Mannerism" is a term which, like "Realism", "Symbolism" and "Impressionist", needs an initial capital letter to differentiate the art movement from a more general meaning of the word. My copy of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary gives this sense of the word a capital letter, as do (in running text) Britannica, Grove Art Online, the Art & Architecture Thesaurus, the Thames and Hudson Dictionary of Art Terms and the Association of Art Editors Style Guide. Ham II (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, for now. This ultimately needs to be an RfC about this entire class of article, but we should not introduce an inconsistency within a category of articles in the interim. There's a long-standing though probably weak claimed though uncodified consensus (coming ultimately out of a few arts-focused wikiprojects, whose output on the question has been inconsistent over time and across projects) to capitalize the names of major arts movements (but not genres, and the dividing line between them is extremely blurry, as is that of "major"). This wouldn't change when a modifier is added. [However, the modifier itself being capitalized in such cases should probably not happen unless the modified version is itself a major arts movement in its own right. So, possibly a leading capital-S in "Southern Mannerism", but not a leading capital-N in "neo-Expressionist", nor a capital-R in "Deco revival".]
I say "weak oppose" because I think that this supposed consensus should be explicitly revisited with an RfC at WT:MOSCAPS and advertised at WP:VPPOL and various wikiprojects. The results of this vaguely defined capitalization habit often fail the test at the top of MOS:CAPS (capitalize only that which s consistently capitalized in independent reliable sources), so this is basically an arts-specific stylization that is directly conflicting with a more general one WP MoS rule; and it's a WP:CONSISTENT problem, especially where the distinction between a movement and a genre is unclear; and the notion of capitalizing something because it's a movement is directly counter to MOS:MOVEMENT (i.e. a "magical exception" for arts movements in particular has materialized out of nowhere and probably does not enjoy the consensus that is claimed for it); and the rationale for this, "needs an initial capital letter to differentiate the art movement from a more general meaning of the word", is bogus, an idea that we have a specific guideline against, at MOS:SIGCAPS. The solution to potential confusion between a generic usage of a word and a topic-specific one is more precise writing (e.g. state explicitly, at first occurrence, that something is an arts movement), not throwing capital letters around as if they can mystically signify something specific to all of our billions of readers, which they cannot.
I don't seem able to find a Wikipedia guideline codifying this capitalization of major arts movements in the first place. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Capitalization and art movements throws up its hands and declares it a "complex issue" without providing a rule, and tries to rely on some external style guides (one particular to a specific organization, another just a random website that has long since been usurped for something else), which don't provide internally consistent or practicably applicable advice, nor advice consistent with each other, nor advice consistent with present de facto WP practice. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music does not address the question (though it provides some not entirely consistent capitalization of certain terms like "Classical" and "Baroque"). Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) doesn't address it, either (but is opposite the MOS:MUSIC style and has consistent lowercase "classical" and "baroque"). In short, this is a bit of a shit-show and needs a clear resolution across the entire subject of arts movements. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 17:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And requesting that SMcCandlish stays on point, so that people with lives can follow without having wead through the twists and turns of random thoughts that enter his head as he types. It's really presumptuous and tiresome, I have to say. Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.svg)
