Talk:Palazzo Pitti

	Palazzo Pitti is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 15, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 29, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted January 13, 2008 Featured article review Kept September 21, 2008 Featured article review Kept
Current status: Featured article

This  level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Architecture: Historic houses High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Historic houses task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Italy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy 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.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Museums Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums 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.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

According to the museum guide of the Palatine Gallery, this gallery was first opened to the public in 1828 by Leopold II of Lorraine. However, the rooms had been vacated by the ruling family for the rooms on the floor above at the end of the 18th century. From then on they were used for the display of the many works, but not to the general public. JoJan 15:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the 18th century view of what constituted the public was very different to that held today. There is no doubt the gallery was visited by the "public" but it was probably in the way that the "public" were traditionally admitted to 18th century "Versailles" - that is those members of the public who maintained a standard of dress not available to the lower classes, those who would not bring in infectious disease, bad manners, or in any other way be undesirable to the occupants of the palazzo. Giano | talk 23:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ruling family had simply moved for their visits to Florence to another part of the palace, where the Argenti museum is. --Sailko 11:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the specola museum is not part of palazzo pitti, it should be moved else where...--82.104.171.102 18:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of the Pitti Palace complex. Giano | talk 18:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not, I live in Florence, if you go the ticket office of the Palace they send you alse where, the info is incorrect, I tried to correct and moved info to another voice (nothing was cancelled).. --Sailko 19:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well it was designed by Peter Leopold of Lorraine to be part of the palace complex, and has been for many years; so therefore is worthy of mention here. If you wish to expand into a full , proper and detailed page then like the other Galleries it is worthy of one, but in it's minimalist present state I don't see the point. But the present status quo is fine by me, a mention here, and a page waiting to be expanded elsewhere can only be a good thing. Giano | talk 20:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if Wikipedia reports incorrect data... From Eyewitness Travel Guide of Florence: "the Museum La Specola is in the Torrigiani Palace, built in 1775 in Via Romana." I can't find anywhere else but in en.wikipedia.com that the specola museum is part of the Pitti Palace. Also in the external links listed, no one indicated the Specola as part of the Pitti Palace. Will someone please send a valid source of that statement that I already tried to correct?? If I don't see nothing in a couple of days I will move again the part about La Specola in the main article about it (where it already is, corrected and developed). I undestrand this is a feature article, so it is a double shame that it says incorrect statements --Sailko 13:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Specola is in the adjacent palace, the old Torrigiani Palace. It is part of the same "block" of Palazzo Pitti but it has no stylistic continuity or internal links as far as I know Roccopoiago (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.florencepass.com/en/tour/details/the-florencepass-uffizi-gallery-vasari-corridor-and-pitti-palace-tour-94
  • In Pitti Palace & Palatine Gallery
  • In Palazzo Pitti
  • In Palazzo Pitti

maru (talk) contribs 04:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  Grotto of Buontalenti at the Pitti Palace
• 
  Boboli Gardens Amphitheatre, viewed from the Pitti Palace
• 
  Florence, viewed from the Pitti Palace

The following statements were tagged ^{[citation needed]} by User:Caniago and have been removed. Someone ought to ask User:Caniago to stand up and take a bow for oustanding standards of intellectual rigor.--Wetman (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. This courtyard has heavy-banded channelled rustication that has been widely copied, notably for the Parisian palais of Maria de' Medici, the Luxembourg.
2. During the 18th century, two perpendicular wings were constructed by the architect Giuseppe Ruggeri to enhance and stress the widening of via Romana, which creates a piazza centered on the façade, the prototype of the cour d'honneur that was copied in France.
3. The palazzo is now the largest museum complex in Florence.

Brilliant job! We all have User:Caniago to thank for the pared-down article as it stands! --Wetman (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Caniago applied a tag This article needs additional citations for verification. I have remnoved this unnecessary and abusive impertinence. This article has already been quite thoroughly disassembled thanks to User:Caniago, resulting in a disservice to the Wikipedia reader, a discourtesy to the various educated and well-intentioned editors who put the former article together and a disgrace to us all. --Wetman (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sum of the changes since User:Caniago has been here. Regardless of the merits of Caniago's FARC'ing of the article, the reaction to it by many editors has been completely over the top, and frankly childish (at least from my looking at it). It's about time that the ridiculing of editors stop and the FARC be treated in unemotive, non-snide, non-inflammatory language. If people think the FARC is flawed, then just say so civilly - not in childish attack mode, not spoilingly reverting to lesser former versions of the article, with sarcastic comments about editors (on talk pages, and discussion pages), and w/o tit-for-tat retaliations on unrelated articles. It's interesting that all involved seem to be long-standing and valued contributors to the site (Caniago included). All should calm down in other words. Just my thoughts said in good faith. --Merbabu (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far I have removed the phrases you feel need cites, and that apparently is not right. I have de-featured the page myself and that is not right either. So why not pop out get the books and cite them yourself. Wetman and I clearly feel they are accepted and noncontroversial facts that don't need citing. I do this to unreffed pages all the time if I have concerns [1] - why can't others? Regards. Giano (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in that list that can't and shouldn't be integrated here. Pairadox (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Oppose

• Giano (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This article isn't so long that it can't absorb any items from the list, and do it better. Prose, with context, is preferable to a stand-alone list. Pairadox (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Palatine gallery contains over 500 works of art, lists do not belong in FAs. The Palatine Gallery is one section if it is to contain mention of numerous works of art it will become disproportionate to the other sections of the page. The list page could be built into a complete appraisal or converted to a page proper on the palatine gallery, leaving the section here as an overview. Please do not start straw poles here as they are not helpful in building consensus. Giano (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just following the instructions at WP:MERGE based on the model of XfD proposals. Sorry you don't like it, but I've found this format to be the best to achieve a clear consensus. Pairadox (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I agree with the format, maybe not the timing but anyway...not knowing a huge amount but I suspect as Giano says that the number of paintings would be huge and prohibitive to have on the article. A succinct summary of the most important with a link to the (potentially very long) list is best. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, another idea would be to actually create an article about the palatine gallery itself, since one doesn't exist yet. It could expand on the gallery itself, major works could get a decent prose write up and lesser works would get a listing in the, well, list of works article. It just strikes me as odd that there's a list when no parent article exists. (I think of this article (Palazzo Pitti) more as a grandfather article.)

You'll notice that I haven't actually logged an official opinion; I'm just offering ideas on how to avoid a list article. If these are major works of art, they deserve better than that. Pairadox (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's fine too. In any case, all the material can be kept on the subsidiary article and formatted later. Shall we close this then?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The story of how this Grand Ducal collection came to be assembled, 1500-1800, through the combined patterns of patronage, inheritance and changing collecting tastes, would make a splendid cotribution to Wikipedia. Its context is the history of European taste and, more broadly, the history of ideas. Not a field tailor-made for a history buff, but I have some books on the subject, and though an incomplete list is jejune, if a sensible core starts to build, I'll be glad to add to it. A brief summary would eventually belong at Palazzo Pitti. --Wetman (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

great idea :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a catalogue of the contents of the Palatine with some appraisals, but I'm not interested in doing the page myself (not my field) but if anyone gets stuck they can cal me for a ref. Giano (talk) 10:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - That stubby list wouldn't benefit the article, best left as an article for future development, as mentioned.--mervyn (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose same as above Udonknome (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"As with many Italian palazzi one has to enter the building in order to fully appreciate its" And then the sentence dies, as the new paragraph speaks of control of the Palazzo. I'm not so familiar with Wikipedia, but whomever the author is, maybe they should fix that first paragraph. 70.114.63.215 (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Palazzo Pitti. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070731062759/http://www.amicidipalazzopitti.it/chisiamo_e.asp to http://www.amicidipalazzopitti.it/chisiamo_e.asp

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi the article List of works in the Palatine Gallery overlaps with this one and I think the information is more useful all in one place. If the content is imported into this article it will be more accessible for users. What do others think?Mccapra (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No,this page is quite long enough as it is, long lists would make it tedious. THe list can always be mentioned in a ‘See Also’ section. Giano (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually stuff should be copied the other way. Lazy Suzie (talk) 12:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; merge templates added or ammended to reflect this revised proposal. Klbrain (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is only 36kB long. That's usually not large enough to merit a split. I don't see why the other article can't be turned into a redirect to Palazzo Pitti#Principal works of art, which has very similar information presented in a better format. DrKay (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a FA, I just think lists and too much of one subject will alter the balance between history of the building, architecture and contents. Giano (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hope it's okay to share something like this: I just fixed the title of the Transportation of the Ark fresco; it had been mis-titled "Noah entering Jerusalem with the Ark". Wrong Ark! That's the high priest in the painting, with David dancing with his harp. Noah was quite a bit earlier! I put the title in as found in other English language sources. Drbobpgh (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]