Talk:Pontormo

message: The Britannica article is called Jacopo da Pontormo. Is there any particular reason why the first name is omitted in the Wikipedia article? --Ghirla -трёп- 14:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Es:, fr:, and it: use Pontormo. I think it is like Rembrandt, or Michelangelo, or Ghirlandajo for that matter ;-) I wouldn't object to moving it to the full name though. Either is fine with me.  DVD+ R/W 17:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, both would be acceptable (as would Jacopo Pontormo, used on Pl: and the wga), but in my experience simply Pontormo is most common. Skarioffszky 18:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would defer to the Getty Index on this, which preferences Pontormo. Planetneutral 06:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full name 

message: Oh dear, I feel that poor Pontormo has been subject to some rather rough treatment here!  Vasari had a field day making fun of Pontormo, that characterization seems to emerge here in almost every section.  But as Elizabeth Pilliod has (I think convincingly) argued, Vasari had good reason to run down Pontormo:  he and Bronzino were rivals for Medici patronage.  In fact, in the years between Vite editions, Vasari was in the process of wresting courtly favor away from Bronzino and securing it all for himself.  So, certainly Vasari shouldn’t be ignored, but perhaps taken with two grains of salt?  Anyway, that’s why I’m trying to deemphasize this notion of ‘Pontormo as emotionally volatile’ a little bit…  Hope no one minds!  Thanks Isocephaly (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. Recent scholarship like this  might be a valuable source, and prove helpful in this regard. JNW (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vasari & Pontormo, Tone

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Jacopo Pontormo 047.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Pontormo. 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/20090802110315/http://www.whitfieldfineart.com/WHITFIELD_FINE_ART/jacopo_pontormo.html to http://www.whitfieldfineart.com/WHITFIELD_FINE_ART/jacopo_pontormo.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090525081547/http://www.whitfieldfineart.com/WHITFIELD_FINE_ART/old_master_paintings.html to http://www.whitfieldfineart.com/WHITFIELD_FINE_ART/old_master_paintings.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051029234022/http://www.guggenheimlasvegas.org/artist_work_md_1305.html to http://www.guggenheimlasvegas.org/artist_work_md_1305.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051229021140/http://www.arpai.org/pdf/061-063.pdf to http://www.arpai.org/pdf/061-063.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051207071210/http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Arts/painting/paintings/bigphotos/P/03galuzz.jpg to http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Arts/painting/paintings/bigphotos/P/03galuzz.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051031150627/http://gallery.euroweb.hu/html/p/pontormo/3/04emmaus.html to http://gallery.euroweb.hu/html/p/pontormo/3/04emmaus.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070815231032/http://www.whitfieldfineart.com/?p=103 to http://www.whitfieldfineart.com/?p=103
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090730234154/http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=945 to http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=945
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060306200815/http://www.casabuonarroti.it/english/other/e-jacopo.htm to http://www.casabuonarroti.it/english/other/e-jacopo.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060317123551/http://www.mfa.org/collections/search_art.asp?coll_accession=&coll_name=&coll_place=&coll_medium=&coll_culture=&coll_credit=&coll_provenance=&coll_has_images=1&coll_keywords=&coll_sort=0&coll_sort_order=0&submit=Search&coll_classification=Drawings&coll_artist=Pontormo to http://www.mfa.org/collections/search_art.asp?coll_accession=&coll_name=&coll_place=&coll_medium=&coll_culture=&coll_credit=&coll_provenance=&coll_has_images=1&coll_keywords=&coll_sort=0&coll_sort_order=0&submit=Search&coll_classification=Drawings&coll_artist=Pontormo
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) 02:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: While creating the Pontormo template, I found that many of the painting dates listed in the Anthology of works section do not match the dates claimed in the corresponding article. For example, Adoration of the Magi is dated c. 1522–1523 in the painting's article and on WikiMedia commons, but this article dates it to 1519–1521. Many of these dates in the article are unreferenced, which makes it all the more difficult to check  from what original source these years came from. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 21:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent painting dates