Talk:Albrecht Dürer

message: I find it helpful to see explanatory footnotes denoted by a non-numerical symbol to distinguish them from footnotes that only cite sources. This is very helpful to casual readers, as they would not know to look at random footnotes for extra, and sometimes important information. I'm less picky about which particular note style an article uses (whether they display as 'Note #' or just a letter), but having them distinguished from sources is thoroughly helpful, with no known disadvantages. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, done. Ceoil (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

text: No, I don't like this at all. The references here are a complete mess, & generally not using decent sources. I wrote most of the article about 13 years ago, when one didn't use inline cites with page numbers. Since then, refs for the material have been added from a variety of sources, some very poor. At some point I will go through & and update the refs. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Choice should stay with the original writer of the article. Have no objection to being reverted. Ceoil (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'm about to go away for a few days, so it won't be for a bit. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a lot of book sources if help needed. Ceoil (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have the Panofsky (I don't)? Johnbod (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, its here. Ceoil (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Lovely, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

text: The addition of poor references is a completely separate issue. Perhaps we could discuss that separately. I'm aware that changing reference style requires consensus, but if you're trying to keep the article one way based on your personal history with the article, that seems to conflict with WP:OWN. This article concerns a major Renaissance figure and should be improved in every way possible for the good of all users, and not limited in ways for the convenience of someone who's worked on it for a certain period of time. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be saying that only the views of those who haven't worked on the article count. That is not the normal view. Johnbod (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. The opinion of everyone who cares to comment matters. I appreciate that you've worked on the article much longer than I have. But the reasoning of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT when it comes to change is not helpful to anyone. Using footnote styles that distinguish content from sources is helpful and becoming more common. But I will bow to whatever consensus dictates for the moment. UpdateNerd (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You "find it helpful", I don't. Apparently my "reasoning" is "not helpful to anyone", but yours is!  I'd go easy on the h word myself. I'm pretty sure you're wrong that is "becoming more common", judging by FAC. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive my inefficient rhetoric. It comes down to this: using special footnotes to highlight information that is peripheral to the main text has a purpose that would be irrelevant if they were standard citations, and therefore most likely never be seen by a casual reader. I would remove some of the footnotes I've added if they were mere citations, the purpose of which is to prove that our information is represented by reliable sources. There is a difference and a reason to use both. UpdateNerd (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Eh, he said he was going to revsit. Ceoil (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Agree with Johnbod that the sources here need sorting - why are we using an 1881 source? - before worrying how they appear. Some of the early life stuff is repeated in Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents where the sourcing is better. In other words, work should focus on using good sources and not worry so much about how they are rendered. Victoria (tk) 13:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: See my last comment in reply to Johnbod. This discussion wasn't started to discuss sources. It's about distinguishing explanatory footnotes. Both doing so and improving sources are not mutually exclusive. Also, ruling out the informational footnotes can help highlight which citations merely list sources. UpdateNerd (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, Update, we are all saying basically the same thing. The refs need an overhaul, both in providing better sourcing and in standardising format. The notes thing isn't a hill I'd choose to die on, so please lets let it play out. Ceoil (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

text: It's not worth doing that right now. As it stands, the referencing is a mess. Generally an article keeps the citation style it began with & since Johnbod was the person to do the most work early on, he's the most familiar with the intended citation style and has offered to put in the effort to tidy up. I suspect the text will change during that process and then once all that's done, consider where to put the explanatory footnotes. Victoria (tk) 14:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: More than happy to concede for now; I guess I didn't realize there was some support for maybe resuming this conversation once the re-sourcing work is further along. UpdateNerd (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote style 

message: 'ʊər' might sound like 'tour' in some accents, but is certainly not universal. Is there not a better comparison? Devgirl (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA 'tour'? 

message: I'd suggest this change to the article, regarding its cause of death:
Having secured his pension, Dürer finally returned home in July 1521, having caught an undetermined illness. It has been theorized that his illness—which afflicted him for the rest of his life, and greatly reduced his rate of work—was malariaPanofsky, but more recent studies discredit that theoryhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20924705/.
Mind Booster Noori (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do a modified version, cutting malaria altogether. Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death cause 

message: In the "other names" section of the infobox, perhaps a former English version of his name, "Albert Durer," should also be included for historical recognition purposes. This version of his name was used by, e.g., Herman Melville (1819-1891) in Ch. 57 of Moby Dick.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.48.37 (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Name