Talk:Raphael

• Talk:Raphael/archive to 2009

Placing of The School of Athens pic

The article needs this at the start. Otherwise the entire layout of the first part of the article needs changing. At present it is the only mature and typical Raphael work in the first 4 screens (on my machine). The article needs a mature work much earlier on. The alternative might be to remove the infobox and put the School in the lead spot, or below the self-portrait, but I think many would object to that. Other than being unusual, is there an actual problem with the current placement, which has been in place for 2 years with no other objections? Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think there is a problem with the image placement. While I appreciate that you have made a huge and well written contribution to this article, the image placment pushes the table of contents into the centre of the screen in a most unattractive way. I general, I like the layout you have used, grouping works into the periods of Raphael's life and development as an artist, so I'm quite surprised by the assertion that "The article needs a mature work much earlier on"; do we really need the image in the lede at all? In the same way the manual of style says we should avoid squashing text between images placed left and right, I think the same thought applies in this case; to squashing the table of contents between image and the infobox. It is true the image doesn't have to be moved to the place I moved it to, but if you think it is essential this image be placed near the beginning of the article, how about placing it elsewhere, say on the right below the infobox? Astronaut (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There isn't room, without leaving a big white gap, which would be worse. The lead should certainly have a typical image in it, given its length. This is important precisely because of the chronological sequence the rest of the article follows. I still don't actually see the problem - is the TOC actually "squeezed" on your screen, or is the layout just unfamiliar? I think the only way to do it is to remove the infobox altogether. Johnbod (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who uses a browser in a smaller window and other readers may use a large text size, but that is beside the point. The unfamiliar layout is simply unattractive on the screen. To suggest removing the infobox just to keep this image in the lede is a ridiculous idea; it is obvious that the best thing to do is move the image. Take a look at the articles on both Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci, they both manage to have longish lede sections with infoboxes and neither needs an additional image on the left in the lede section. Astronaut (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

With Michelangelo you get major works by 3 screens down, which is just about ok, altyhough I wouldn't do it like that myself. The Leonardo article is exactly what needs to be avoided here. This article has had over over 2 million hits while the image has been this way, and yours is the first complaint. Removing the infobox would be the best compromise, but leaving things as they are is the best solution. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I'm not the first to 'complain' about this. The very first comment on this talk page said the image placement was 'odd' less than 2 weeks after you placed the image there. No one bothered to reply to that comment - I note you were heavily involved with the peer review around that time, so maybe it slipped your attention. Just 2 weeks later, another comment made a similar observation after you reverted User:Roux's edits. In the subsequent discussion, User:RossF18 also thought this image should be moved. Please don't presume that because you have resisted attempts to move this image, that consensus says it should remain where it is. Astronaut (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

How about like this? The TOC is forced at the left, the Athens image is centred, and a break is forced at the end. It looks OK to me at most window widths, except those around 800px wide, where the image and infobox overlap. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

PS, I think the caption needs to state more explicitly what's so important about that work that it needs to be in the lead, e.g. that it demonstrates his mature phase. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with that layout & will add to the caption - the infobox used to give it, pretty misleadingly, as his only "works". Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You want want to check that in some older browsers, I have this vague memory that if you have left/center/right items, some browsers tend to render that as though the element clears the floating elements. Not sure how common that problem is. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh. You're right, it looks crap in IE6 (still used by 21%), where any part of the infobox which is line with the centre image is blanked. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And looks damn poor in IE8 as well. TBH, I see nothing wrong with moving some images slightly further down to get this layout (which seems OK in IE8). Astronaut (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I checked with the other browsers I had access to: Seen in Internet Explorer 6 there seems to be a problem like I saw in IE8. It is better, and probably as intended, in Firefox 3.0 and SeaMonkey 1.1.?. Considering Internet Explorer's large share of the browser market, it is a bad idea to leave it as it is. So, since there appeared to be no objection, I've gone ahead and moved the images as I described immediately above. Astronaut (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that looks really messy, & it would be better as it was in the first place. Anyone agree? Or replace the School of Athens in the infobox, or remove the infobox altogether? The portrait is not very good & not from life, but we don't have another adult portrait at the moment. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. I am baffled why you think it is "really messy" and would appreciate an explanation of what you think is wrong with the layout or how it conflicts with the guidelines in the manual of style. It is a common convention that biographical articles have an image of the person in the infobox rather than the work they are noted for (see the Michelangelo and Da Vinci article for examples of this) and, as I've said before, removing the infobox is a ridiculous idea. Astronaut (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Give me the same on why the original layout was such a big problem. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style for art infoboxes; these are very often removed for just this reason - that they obstruct the more important function of showing a major work as lead pic. It is not a "ridiculous idea" at all, and you are getting rather tiresome on this. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The original layout was a problem because placing the image on the left forces the table of contents into the centre of the page between the image and the infobox. No only did this not look good on the screen, but at narrower window widths the table of contents is actually squashed. Placing the image in the centre, as proposed by AlmostReadytoFly, might have been OK if it worked in Internet Explorer, but having the centred image overlapping the infobox for possibly 60% of readers is unacceptable; and you would still have a problem at narrower window widths. Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style, I could see nothing that said infoboxes should be removed, just that "conflict for space between the need to illustrate visual arts articles and the use of infoboxes. This is decided on a case-by-case basis." So, why exactly is the current layout "really messy"?

If you think I am being tiresome, maybe you would prefer to listen to someone else's opinion. I am happy to open this up to a third opinion or request for comment discussion. Astronaut (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As of this writing, the layout looks fine as it is. It would be nice for there to be a way to put Athens to the right of the table of contents so that it's in between the Info box and the table of context. However, I do not know of a way to do this, as wiki wants either to put it on the left via putting the picture at the top of that paragraph or at the bottom of the info box. Perhaps we need to petition wikipedia programs to institutue a change. Maybe it'll be in place for the beta. --RossF18 (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You can do that, but it causes problems in some browsers - see above & 3) below. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have now asked for comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary

See above for issues

• 1) The top of the article used to look like this
• 2) Astronaut changed it to this, moving the School of Athens way below
• 3) It could be like this, but it causes problems in some browsers
• 4) Astronaut's next try was this
• 5) I would prefer to remove the infobox altogether to 2) or 4), like this
• 6)or this

Comments:

• I think I now prefer no. 6, which allows the School to be larger. As usual much of the infobox info is over-simplified. Thoughts? Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• My browser is Safari & display is smallish. Here are the ones that aren't working: #1 crushes the TOC to 1 3/4" width, and leaves a lot of white space at sides. #3 is an unattractive layout & the jpg overlaps the text. #4 is functional but the School of Athens is an awkward appendage to the infobox.

Better: #2 looks fine; I don't mind scrolling to get to the major works, although I suspect it makes pedagogical sense to put one of them near the top. #5 is very good. #6 seems best as it supplies all the expected elements & fills the space well. Losing the infobox is no loss. Ewulp (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• 3 is obviously out. I think displacing the TOC (1) is ugly and removing the infobox (5, 6) is a loss. Johnbod thinks (and I defer to his knowledge) that the Athens image is necessary. So I suggest 4, but also fixing the images below to the same width as the infobox - to make them less awkward - and possibly moving the infobox up beside the otheruses templates. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• In one of my sandboxes I've prepared a version (7) that includes the infobox, the School of Athens, and the TOC. Thoughts? Ham 18:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine with me if it works on most browsers/screens. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I would still go with #4 as most acceptable to most editors. Yes, I know that each editor here has their own favorite, but key is what can everyone be satisfied with and I think that's number 4. I would personally also take number 3 but number 3 is odd in that I would prefer the School of Athens in the middle of that white space, not pushed up against the info box. As far as info box itself, I think the convention is that info box be present, per Leonardo's page. If you are suggesting that info box be done away with (favorite in that case be #6), then your argument would have to be to do away with all info boxes in all of articles involving artists. If that's your argument, that's fine, but is that what you're arguing? Because I just don't think Rafael's article should be the only major painter article without an info box.--RossF18 (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how many times you have said that on this page, but my response is still the same. See above, the VA MOS etc. Most artist FAs don't have infoboxes: Caspar David Friedrich, John Michael Wright, John Vanbrugh (architect), Robert Peake the Elder. Of the big names in the old masters: Hans Holbein the Younger, Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Nicolas Poussin, & Giovanni Battista Tiepolo don't have them, & no doubt many others. Titian still has one, although much of the information on it is still questionable, and used to be wrong, leading to a row in the UK Parliament - see the article. It has been removed many times, but there are people (not the article editors) who keep re-adding it without discussion, because they wrongly seem to think there is some rule that you have to have one. There isn't. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

First, relax. I wasn't the one to start this discussion up again. And if something that has been discussed a hundred times is discussed again, well, don't get too excited if the same points are once again brought up. Second, in that case, 6 is fine as most painters mentioned by you still have their own portraits up on top, not another paiting. --RossF18 (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I still think the infobox is quite important to readers, even if there is no rule that says you have to have one. Johnbod's concerns about infoboxes in general seems to be that they can mislead readers if they contain inaccurate or questionable information (apologies if I am wrong in that assessment). Everyone has the ability to correct the information in an infobox (including reverting vandalism carried out by politicians), or we can simply leave information out if it is not known. Even uncertain dates can be easily handled in an acceptable manner, like in the infobox for Titian. However, if the consensus is that the infobox absolutely must go in order to accommodate the School of Athens image, then #6 would be an acceptable compromise in my opinion. Astronaut (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

And while Johnbod is correct to point out that there is no rule that there should be infoboxes, there is also equally no rule that there should be no infoboxes. I think they're helpful too in giving the page more encyclopedic view. But again, if it's that big of a deal for Johnbod, 6 is fine. --RossF18 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ham's version 7 looks fine to me in Firefox 3.0 (where it looks like my attempt) and in IE6 (where the Athens image drops below the TOC). Of all the options, it's my favourite. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I should say that I designed it on Google Chrome, so that's three browsers. Ham 14:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Also fine in FF3.6 and IE8, and tolerable in Opera with small resolution [1] AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC).

FWIW I'm seeing overlap of lower 10% of infobox by The School of Athens in #7 (in Safari). Ewulp (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Raphael mentioned in modern works

I saw on a previous post about No Trivia and just wanted to ask why?, or maybe add a bit about Raphael in modern or pop culture. Raphael is a character known as 'Rafe' in the Cassandra Palmer novel series written by Karen Chance.

MJB 21:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melanie beswick (talk • contribs)

These sections are random and irrelevant, and tend to grow with minutea. The hope is that editors are more focused on the substance of Raphael's life and work, rather than later namechecks and shout-outs. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox for Raphael

Why does the famous artists like Leonardo and Rembrandt have artist infobox but Raphael one of the famous old masters has no infobox at all. If its about his birthdate we could list both besides for example the artist Vermeer whose birthdate is uncertain has an infobox. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but agree. However, the whole issue of the lede section was discussed last month, including whether or not an infobox was important. Consensus seems to indicate having the "The School of Athens" image in the lede is more important than the infobox. Astronaut (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

But what use is the infobox here in fact? Actually the version by User:Rizalninoynapoleon was acceptable to me, but concerns previously have been about people on different browsers, with small screens etc, & I suspect there are problems there. But I reject, as does WP:VAMOS, the presumption that all artist articles should have an infobox as default. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Raphael is an important artist that needs an infobox. We can refer the matter to the administrators on the other browsers. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As no comments have been made, the infobox will be placed. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No comments have been made because the subject has been exhaustively discussed before. Don't be surprised if it doesn't last. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't last Johnbod, because you keep on reverting any attempt at change, this time within two minutes of leaving the above comment. Consensus cannot be met if every attempt at change is quickly reverted by you. Honestly, just what is wrong with the infobox reintroduced by Rizalninoynapoleon, and why is it SO very important the School of Athens image is prominently placed in the lede (I don't think we ever to the bottom of that when we discussed it previously) - the Leonardo da Vinci article for example manages very well with a brief mention of both the Mona Lisa and The Last Supper as being his most famous works, but with images of both much further down the article. Astronaut (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let me explain this AGAIN one last time. It is important that a mature work of Raphael is shown at the start of the article so that people do not have read down three screens to see what all the fuss is about. The lede summarizes the highlights of his career & should be illustrated to match. Now can you tell me why it is SO very important to have an infobox, without referring to other articles (but feel free to refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (visual arts) and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)? For further details see above - we have been through all of these points before - "Raphael is an important artist that needs an infobox" WRONG - see above. And so on. Johnbod (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but all I have is the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and the fact that the need for a mature work at the start seems unimportant in other articles. Even so, it's probably a better idea than insisting I support the desire for an infobox using only the advice offered in WP:VAMOS, a guideline which Johnbod had a very large hand in writing. Astronaut (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The infobox is not required and in this case it is not advisable to add it. Several previous long standing discussions have established that the infobox in most cases is a dumbing down of the subject and is only an option at best. Consensus at this article is against the use of an infobox...Modernist (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is well equipped to provide information by reliance on its policy: :” Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. :”Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.” Consensus is declared by Modernist: “Consensus at this article is against the use of an infobox...Modernist (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC).” Arguing is promised to be futile and :” Don't be surprised if it doesn't last.” Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC). “ Arguing is futile if there is no established rule as to infobox inline citations. On the other hand the data used in the infobox is taken from the article which required inline citations. Therefore there is no need for consensus since it is in full compliance with the rules of Wikipedia. If you need you can ask for arbitration on this issue. (Salmon1 (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)).

This is hardly an appropriate subject for arbitration! The issue is nothing much to do with the information in the infobox, but the implications it has for the design and layout of the article, an issue on which consensus is relevant, as are the opinions of the major contributors to the page. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration is the last resort when all other resources have been tried, which they clearly have not been. This is still at the primary stage of discussion between editors. Please see WP:DR. NPOV is irrelevant. WP:MOS is more to the point. Ty 17:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The main objection to the infobox is that it precludes a major work in the WP:LEAD. There should be a way of accommodating both requirements. As the lead section should be a summary of the main content of the article, it would seem to follow there should be a summary not only of the textual but also of the visual content, i.e. the images of the artwork, by representing them also in the lead. One solution is a major image in the infobox, but as the box is normally for an image of the subject of the biography, perhaps inclusion of a thumbnail in the lead would do the trick, or else a table at the end of the lead which could include several images showing the stages of his work. See here for some examples of tables. Something like table 3 might do the job. Ty 17:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You will see from a section or two up that a range of solutions have been tried (I was perfectly happy with at least one containing an infobox) and we had such a solution for a long time, but problemsd were raised with the effect using specific browsers. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

We can't cater for every browser and screen resolution (when I last found it, there was an MOS guide that 800 x 600 res should be catered for). Is there any guidance for browsers? Anyway, I have made a different suggestion that the lead should have a survey of images as a summary of article content, not just one picture. Ty 17:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the version I proposed, combining an infobox and a thumbnail of the School of Athens, apparently works fine on various versions of Internet Explorer, Firefox and Google Chrome, is "tolerable" in Opera and a little bit off in Safari. As Ty said above, "we can't cater for every browser and screen resolution". If it had been implemented by a disinterested editor months ago, we could have averted this overlong discussion. I am tempted to be bold unless there are new objections. Ham 19:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Firefox and on 800 x 600 screen, it obscures the infobox below "training". Ty 19:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Right; that wasn't said above. So where would your table of images be in relation to the other elements? Ham 19:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC) (Edit: Here's a new attempt to incorporate both the infobox and the School of Athens. How does it look on 800 x 600? Ham 19:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

I guess a good place for the table would be after the text in the lead. It has never, to my knowledge, been done before, but seems a logical inclusion. Ty 20:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Or the infobox could be shortened - that stuff under the picture could all go into a note for a start. NB the latest changes had a different, much inferior, version of the infobox info. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm against the TOC at top left. It's ugly and confusing. It refers to material after the lead.Ty 20:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion at User:Tyrenius/R. The image position can be changed. It works at 800 x 600 and 1024 x 768 on firefox. Ty 20:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok by me, if unusual. No doubt someone will object .... Maybe if we just add 400 words to the lead we won't have any issue.... Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I did think the lead was a little on the short side, so an expansion would give more room to adjust the image. Shortening the image caption (removed text could be added to the lead) and, as you suggested, putting some of the infobox image description in a note, would ease up a bit of space. Ty 21:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've changed to my suggested version,[2] pending further discussion. Ty 12:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Thanks. I commented there "Prone to vandalism (mostly seasonal when Art History 101 reaches him); a pretty stable article with few useful edits so probably a good candidate. On several reviewers' watchlists. " Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I've got it watchlisted. Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Watchlisted. I've always assumed that this, like the articles on his colleagues, has been vulnerable to young fans of Raphael (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles). JNW (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Edit semi-protected}} At first I'd like to apologize for any mistakes in posting these new entries to the Raphael-page, but my English is not native and so it is hard for me to go through all the explanations (but I've already added the books mentioned below to the german Wikipedia-Raffael-section and that has been okay).

So please would anybody be so kind and add the following books about Raphael to the "Further Reading"-section for me?

- Juergen M. Lehmann: Raphael - The Holy Family with the Lamb of 1504, The Original and its Variants (Studio Exhibition in the Museum Fridericianum Kassel, 5th Nov. 1995 to 21st Jan. 1996, extended to 3rd March 1996), ISBN 3-9804608-2-7
- Juergen M. Lehmann: Raffael - Die Heilige Familie mit dem Lamm von 1504, Das Original und seine Varianten (Studio-Ausstellung Museum Fridericianum Kassel, 05.11.1995 bis 21.01.1996, verlaengert bis 03.03.1996), ISBN 3-9804608-1-9
- Juerg Meyer zur Capellen: Raphael in Florence. London 1996. Hardback, Azimuth Editions London, 1996; ISBN 1-898592-08-X
- Juerg Meyer zur Capellen: Raffael in Florenz. Germany, December 1996. Hardback, publisher: Hirmer-Verlag, Germany; ISBN 3-7774-6980-7
- Juerg Meyer zur Capellen: Raphael - The Paintings. Volume I: The Beginnings in Umbria and Florence ca. 1500-1508. Publisher: Arcos, Landshut 2001, ISBN 3-935339-00-3
- Juerg Meyer zur Capellen: Raphael - The Paintings. Volume II: The Roman Religious Paintings, ca. 1508-1520. Publisher: Arcos, Landshut 2005, ISBN 3-935339-21-6
- Juerg Meyer zur Capellen: Raphael - The Paintings. Volume III: The Roman Portraits, ca. 1508-1520. Publisher: Arcos, Landshut 2008, ISBN 978-3-935339-30-5
(in process: Raphael - The Paintings. Volume IV: The Wall Paintings, and planned: Raphael - The Paintings. Volume V: The Tapestries both by Juerg Meyer zur Capellen)
- Pierluigi De Vecchi: Raphael. Publisher: Abbeville Press, September 1, 2002; ISBN 978-0789207708
- Pierluigi De Vecchi: Raffael. Hirmer Verlag, Munich 2002; ISBN 978-3-7774-9500-2
- Juerg Meyer zur Capellen: Raffael. Taschenbuch, german language, publisher: Beck Verlag, Munich 2010; ISBN 978-3-406-60091-3
Note (not for the Raphael-entry, only an explanation to the editors' team): The 5 volumes from Juerg Meyer zur Capellen are the latest catalogue raisonné like "Luitpold Dussler's: Raphael - A Critical Catalogue of his Pictures, Wall-Paintings and Tapestries" is one. The first 3 volumes are available already and the 4th one is in process right now. Prof. Juerg Meyer zur Capellen is also responsible for the Raffael Projekt together with Prof. Dr. Stefan Kummer, you'll find an english web-site right here: http://www.raffael-projekt.com; There are 2 books of Prof. Meyer zur Capellen, that are not in english, but these are easy to identify since the name "Raphael" is spelled "Raffael" in the german works and I don't know if these should appear on the english Wikipedia at all. One of the books from Juergen M. Lehmann is a german version as well as one of Pierluigi De Vecchi's works. I've arranged the listing of the books by date of appearance, not by the author. Thanks a lot in advance Hwp0815 13:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: Thanks, but you've suggested adding a large number of extra sources to an already-large Further reading section. As described at Wikipedia:Layout#Further reading, these sections should be limited, and are not intended to serve as a directory. Perhaps you could suggest the half-dozen or so best sources from the above list and from those already listed? There's a proposed guideline for deciding which are the best sources to include in Further reading at Wikipedia:Further reading. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Edit semi-protected}} Thanks a lot for your explanations, I've thought it over and discovered a mistake by the way in this line: * Raphael: A Critical Catalogue of His Paintings; Jürg Meyer zur Capellen, Stefan B. Polter, Arcos, 2001-2008... This author didn't write "a critical catalogue" (for the correct title see below), his catalogue raisonné is split into 5 volumes, 3 are available already, the 4th will appear pretty soon and Nr. 5 is planned, I'd suggest the following entries in Further Reading:

<start of section>

* Raphael; John Pope-Hennessy, New York University Press, 1970, ISBN 0-8147-0476-X;
* The standard source of biographical information is now: V. Golzio, Raffaello nei documenti nelle testimonianze dei contemporanei e
nella letturatura del suo secolo, Vatican City and Westmead, 1971;
* Raphael - A Critical Catalogue of his Pictures, Wall-Paintings and Tapestries, catalogue raisonné by Luitpold Dussler published in
the United States by Phaidon Publishers, Inc., 1971, ISBN 0-7148-1469-5 (out of print, but there is an online version here);
* Raphael: From Urbino to Rome; Hugo Chapman, Tom Henry, Carol Plazzotta, Arnold Nesselrath, Nicholas Penny, National Gallery
Publications Limited, 2004, ISBN 1-85709-999-0 (exhibition catalogue);
* The Cambridge Companion to Raphael, Marcia B. Hall, Cambridge University Press, 2005, ISBN 0-521-80809-X;
* Raphael: Raphael - The Paintings Volumes I-V; Jürg Meyer zur Capellen, Stefan B. Polter, Arcos, 2001-2008, a new catalogue raisonné in
five volumes, vol. IV & V still being published.
Vol. I: The Beginnings in Umbria and Florence ca. 1500-1508, ISBN 3-935339-00-3, Vol. II: The Roman Religious Paintings, ca. 1508-1520,
ISBN 3-935339-21-6, Vol. III: The Roman Portraits, ca. 1508-1520, ISBN 978-3-935339-30-5, Vol. IV: The Wall Paintings (in process,
almost finished), Vol. V: The Tapestries (planned).

<end of section>

The exhibition catalogue "Raphael: From Urbino to Rome; Hugo Chapman, Tom Henry, Carol Plazzotta..." is not as important as the other aforementioned books and you could leave it away, if you like so. But Jürg Meyer zur Capellen should appear at least with the 5-volume-oeuvre, since this is the latest and widest work and it is written in english. Furthermore you could replace the umlaut "ü" with "ue", because this is just what it means and wouldn't confuse readers, who only speak english.

Thanks a lot for your help and your interest, soon I will meet somebody to provide me a (short) list of the most important books regarding Raphael; once I have it, I'll put it at this talk page, and then you'll decide to use it or not. Also there is a link at the book "Raphael - A Critical Catalogue of his Pictures, Wall-Paintings and Tapestries, catalogue raisonné by Luitpold Dussler published in the United States by Phaidon Publishers, Inc., 1971, ISBN 0-7148-1469-5 (out of print, but there is an online version here)", that leads to the online version of it and I think this link should remain there.

Hwp0815 12:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Unlike the German WP, we do not aim to provide complete bibliographies, and I'm not sure how many WP readers really need to go straight from our article to a 5-vol full catalogue; probably not many. A single unified mention of the Capellen is enough, especially as it is incomplete. Anyone who wants to pursue it can easily find the individual volumes. The recent Pier Luigi De Vecchi & Bette Talvacchia monographs are probably more appropriate for a general readership, and the populist Raphael Trail: The Secret History of One of the World's Most Precious Works of Art by Joanna Pitman, which I think I will now include as I see you can get it on UK Amazon for £0.01 + p&p, which is more than can be said for Capellen. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected}} That's okay for me, thanks for this information; the most important thing was to remove "A Critical Catalogue of His Paintings; Jürg Meyer zur Capellen, Stefan B. Polter...", anyway, because as mentioned before, this book does not exist. Thanks for your time and best regards Hwp0815 16:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect painting of Saint George and the Dragon

If I'm not mistaken, the painting of "Saint George and the Dragon" depicted on this page isn't the one created by Rafael. While it does appear to be the same subject matter, I believe that it was created by someone else. The style isn't the same as his other work shown and the National Gallery of Art displays a different Saint George and the Dragon attributed to Rafael. Thank you. 184.99.88.5 (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

There are 2, both by Raphael, both on the template. Johnbod (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed excess of images

I removed the abnormal number of images: the strength (in my opinion) of Wikipedia compared to Britannica is that we have far more detail in separate articles for his paintings, so images can be seen there. If one wants to see galleries, there's plenty of them at Commons. I also added a precise reference to Palazzo Caprini, which was ignored by the previous editors, and removed some POV terms. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Also another blunder: Via Giulia is of course not in Borgo, since it's on the other side of Tiber River! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing articles. Leave this article alone. The galleries were fine. Stop deleting them...Modernist (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)