Talk:Nicolas Poussin

message: Spinoza1111 04:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: comments

message: There has to be a better way to express this: "Until the 20th century he remained the dominant inspiration for such classically oriented artists as Jacques-Louis David and Paul Cézanne." I mean, once the 20th century started, did he CEASE being the inspiration for David et Cezanne?--ByronB 02:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  please rephrase 

message: poussin painted self portraits, in which the subject was taken from after the 12th century. are these to be excluded from the statemenbt under the et in arcadia ego painting?
Spinoza1111 04:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  self-portraits 

message: Would it be worth mentioning, perhaps in the "Legacy" section, that Poussin features prominently in Balzac's novella Le Chef-d'œuvre inconnu?  Sindinero (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you joking?  Sindinero (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balzac? 

message: My answer following the deletion af the link by TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom: I honestly think that the website linked meets WP criteria, notably the 3 points of "What to link" and the 3rd point of "What can normally be linked" of the WP:EL. Available in French since 2006, the whole site (except the news section - to come) has just been translated in English and now offers an important amount of information about Poussin for English speaking people: his life (and his biographers), his works (notably at The Louvre Museum with many pictures of the paintings and engravings), his bibliography (almost 30 books), his circle... I don't understand your deletion, even if I agree with the principle that Wikipedia is not a farm of links.
What do you think? May we add this external link to Poussin's page? By the way, the thing that should be deleted on this page about Nicolas Poussin is the category "French Baroque painters": Poussin was definitely not a Baroque painter! Thank you for your attention. Guillaumeh75 (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems ok to me, though the content is not all that extensive. In English Poussin certainly is French Baroque, just as Vermeer has to be cautiously classed as Baroque. Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: there is no indication of who is responsible for the content and why we should trust what they say to be accurate and representative.  Their biography is based mainly on one source, if we are sending people to external materials, why would we send them to something that has been filtered rather than the main original source? There does not appear to be anything on that site, that if this article were fully developed would not be extraneous to the article. The bibliography and exhibitions are easily found on other sites and so there is nothing unique about the content. And hence it fails on many criteria.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you TRPoD for your remark about the responsible of the site; I've just added the information which was obviously missing. For the rest I of course disagree with you, specially when you say that there's nothing on this site. I won't insist anymore even if I still think you deprive people of an interesting source of information on Nicolas Poussin. Guillaumeh75 (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: as you are connected with the site and have a conflict of interest, your opinions are no longer eligible to be considered when attempting to determine the consensus of whether or not the link is appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: the publisher  of the content Guillaume Horen fails the requirements of being an published expert on the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

text: The point is, we have no existing links that cover this material. Are "the bibliography and exhibitions easily found on other sites"? Depends how good at searches you are, & I liked the selective bibliography. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not a linkpharm. We do not have to have external links.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As the EL is not egregious or redundant, I would not have deleted it, but I would not have added it in the first place, either. Ewulp (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asking for a consensus in order to add the external link *[http://www.nicolas-poussin.com/en/ A website dedicated to Nicolas Poussin]? 

message: Hey I didn’t mean to change the reference style—in fact, the only thing I like less than the footnote style I thought I was making more complete earlier is an article with three or four different reference styles, which is what I thought I saw before I touched it.
Which one should we be using here? Thanks (and sorry) LLarson (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that the style was rather messy before your edit. I appreciate the improved consistency, but my own preference is to avoid the templates (which were absent from citations and nearly so in the Reference section), and there were some problems in the copyedits of the text, hence my somewhat peremptory rartial rv. So, which way forward? In the References section the style is pretty consistent except for the two Henry Keazor books; the citations are more mixed but the short citation style is prevalent (to my chagrin my latest edit a few minutes ago muddied things further...) Ewulp (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with that - I'm working on a Poussin wiki-Christmas card at the moment, so have my books out & will try to chip in. I don't like sfn templates (or indeed any) either. More refs would be good - I'm sure that: "Thompson, James, Poussin, N., & Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York, N.Y.). (1992). Nicolas Poussin. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art" is fully available on the web as a PDF. Few of the long list of "References" are being used; the rest should go to FR, or just go. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref style 

message: I think that the list of works of Poussin included in one section of the article is redundant, since a more detailed and complete list exists as a separate article.   I would propose that it be removed, and replaced by the link to the more complete list.   Does anyone have any objections or other ideas about this?   Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favor of removal; an arbitrary list like this isn't adding much. Ewulp (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the list of works 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nicolas Po. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 22:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nicolas Po" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: How long did he study under Lallemand at the time? Loopitywoop (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Our source says one month under an unnamed painter "of little talent" who is thought to be Lallemand.  I've adjusted the text.  Ewulp (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of training with Georges Lallemand?