Talk:Palazzo Pitti

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Palatine Gallery 

message: 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)
replies: text: It is part of the Pitti Palace complex. Giano | talk 18:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  specola museum 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: The following statements were tagged  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  -  why can't others? Regards. Giano (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prizewinning intellectual rigor

message: "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)
thread_title:  4) The Palazzo today 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Actually stuff should be copied the other way. Lazy Suzie (talk) 12:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; merge templates added or ammended to reflect this revised proposal. Klbrain (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposed Merger

message: 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)
thread_title:  Amusing title mistake fixed