Talk:Palazzo del Te

---

Please modify the second sentence in the article: it's hard to understand what is meant there! --Ghirla | talk 00:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for expansion

This article treats such a signal monument in the history of Western art that the coverage deserves to be expanded. Here are some quotes from the Britannica, for processing by more experienced editors:

1. "This palace is almost a parody of the serene classicism of Donato Bramante while retaining the forms of Roman antiquity. The building consists of a square block around a central court with a garden opening off at right angles to the main axis--in itself characteristic of the way in which all the elements are slightly different from what would be expected. The design is particularly famous for its capricious misuse of ancient Greek and Roman ornamental motifs."
2. "The various exterior aspects of the Palazzo del Te provide a succession of changing moods, which are contrived so as to retain the surprised attention of the spectator rather than to present him with a building that can be comprehended at a glance. In the courtyard the oddly fractured cornice sections create an air of ponderous tension, whereas the loggia is lightly elegant. Similarly, the illusionistic decoration of the interior runs the full gamut from heavy (if self-parodying) tragedy to pretty delicacy. Giulio also created a series of contrived vistas, through arches and doors, much like that later projected by Michelangelo for the Palazzo Farnese in Rome."
3. "This showpiece of trompe l'oeil (illusionistic) decoration is painted from floor to ceiling... Even the fireplace was incorporated into the decoration, and the flames had a part to play. The colour is very crude; the subject is suited to facile virtuosity and tends to bring out the streak of cruelty and obscenity that runs just below the surface in much of Giulio's painting."

P.S. The breathtakenly obscene murals need to be enlarged upon as well. --Ghirla | talk 00:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

A "breath of fresh air"?

I think we all need to be especially cautious in re-editing articles where we think of ourselves as a "breath of fresh air" and set about recasting carefully assembled material if—and this is the tell-tale symptom—we have no new material to offer, only our own delightfully fresh and modern style to be liberally applied and bold cuts of "superfluous" text to make. "Giulio Romano, architect" and "designed by Giulio Romano" in a caption are perfectly equivalent. As Ghirlandajo shows, there is plenty to add to this article, both in details and in interpretation. For example, where are the quotes from historians of architecture? Some would be welcome here. What does Sir Bannister Fletcher say? Or James Ackerman? John Summerson? --Wetman 22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Ghirlandajo's article is definitively NOT an encyclopedia article. For example, the article should start with "Palazzo Te is...", and NOT with "To a layman in architecture" etc. It could find a good place in an art book, I agree, but here we're writing an encyclopedia, with its standard. Ok, my English is not perfect (I'm from Italy), but I think you could intervene freely to correct, and maybe improve, my encyclopedia-shaped form, don't you agree? It's the process I followed with Cuba, Palermo and others, with the help of English language-born Bill. Moreover, I seem Ghirlandajo is a bit too in love with his version. Let me know if what I wrote is as reasonable as I hope. Attilios.

• It now complies with the manual of style. Slight POV removed. Giano | talk 12:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I reworked it a bit. Deleted the explanation of Mannerism (High Renaissance, Alberti, etc.) which has little meaning in a particular article. There's the link to the proper article if one need specific info. Added missing commas somewhere and slightly pompous sentences suppressed. Typo Isla del Te becomes Isola del Te (we're not in Spain here). For what I can see, none of the original info is missing, as only non-encyclopedia-style things has been removed. It seems a good article, IMHO. Therefore I would think that any revertion to preceding version would probably mean somebody is sticking to personal vanities. Let me know and thanks for good work. Attilios.

Charles V

I just wonder if the Emperor Charles V came to Mantua to visit the Federico's Palazzo and then decided to elevate him to the title of Duke. That's what appears in the sentence ! I'm sure it's the opposite ! ℍenry, encyclophile (speak slowly, please) 07:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Palazzo del Te → Palazzo Te — "Palazzo del Te" in Italian means "Palace of the Tea", while the "Te" in the name is an island in Mantua where the palace is located. This is a typical mispelling of Italians not into the matter that seems to have propagated here also. --Attilios 23:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC) discussion set up by GTBacchus^(talk) 20:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support, for reasons give below. --Amandajm 11:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Support The difference in number of google hits between the two names is not especially large, so I don't think that this should be decided on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME alone. I would prefer the article to use the same name as is used on the official website. Skarioffszky 13:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose - I think it is clear that "Palazzo Te" is now the correct name in Italian, but "Palazzo del Te" in English, probably because that is what Vasari calls it (well he calls it the "Palazzo del T" - pronounced the same [1]) - as I expect did all Italians in the centuries between its construction and tea becoming popular. See this from JSTOR - reviews of 2 books on the Palazzo, one in Italian using Palazzo Te, one in English using Palazzo del Te. [2] Also here [3] and [4]. Britannica and the Grove Art dictionary also use "del Te". Even the article says the island it is built on is called "del Te". Perhaps in time the English usage will change, but not yet. A bit should be added to the article to explain the difference. Johnbod 21:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Follow the usage in the English-language texts and think of what the English-speaking reader will enter when looking for an article and you won't go wrong. Palazzo Te is a redirect, so there's "no child left behind" --Wetman 22:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

I checked the usual Google tests. The results I got were:

Google Search:

• "Palazzo del Te": 10,400
• "Palazzo Te": 12,400

Google Books,

• "Palazzo del Te": 626
• "Palazzo Te": 188

Google Scholar

• "Palazzo del Te": 270
• "Palazzo Te": 134

Perhaps those numbers will be helpful to someone. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - most of the main ghits are tourist info, mostly from Italian sources, so understandably use the Italian name. The books & scholar searches will also include some Italian language refs, but give more the results I would expect. 02:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

not fully signed Johnbod 15:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the "Italian" name should be considered more reliable. I wrote, there's no much difference as even in Italian sources "Palazzo del Te" is used. What I would you let understand is that "del Te" is a mispelling coming exactly from Italian, that seems to have propagated through English sources. As for the latter, I'd prefer to avoid giving them much reliability when dealing with Italian names... I've read something comic even on Britannica! most of the older ones had great problems even to distinguish Italian from Spanish language. I think, when the official websiteof Palazzo Te gives us the correct spelling, we should stick on it, as the most reliable (one imagines that people working somewhere know the name of what are they working in...). But, I repeat... "del Te" is not so wrong: I think it simply gives the idea we are using not updated or mediocre sources. in conclusion: it's not a matter of "Italian" or "English" spelling. When ALL Italian institutional sites call it "Palazzo Te" we should start to think that. I give the array of them:

• Comune of Mantua
• Mantua Portal
• Province of Mantua
• Lombardy region

I think they should be reliable, aren't they? Bye and good work. --Attilios 08:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that they're reliable, but in questions of article naming, we generally rely on WP:COMMONNAME, which is an elaboration of WP:NAME#Use common names of persons and things. It appears that "Palazzo del Te" is more common in English language sources, so it seems Wikipedia should reflect that fact, if we're using that standard. The article should, however, certainly include discussion of the "del Te" vs. "Te" issue. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the less correct ought to give way to the more correct, regardless. Palzzo del Te can have a redirect to Palazzo Te just as easily as the other way around.

--Amandajm 00:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't be the first to disagree with the policy that we base our naming conventions on commonness rather than correctness. The justification given at WP:NAME is that the encyclopedia is optimized for the reader, rather than the editor, and for a general, rather than a specific audience. A lot of people also cite a "principle of least astonishment", i.e., that we should endeavor to surprise readers the least, as when they click on a link, and find themselves at an article with an unexpected title.

If you disagree with that, I think it would be worthwhile to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. I suspect that one major argument against basing titles on correctness is the difficulty in some cases of deciding who's correct. Those calls would involve taking sides in some dispute, so we just default to common usage, which is as neutral as we can get. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't such a huge issue in Germany, but get to Russia and Greece and it becomes one. I don't think you would argue for Capella Sistina as the article title, although it is very correctly a redirect. Johnbod 03:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think our task would be to prived the reader the most correct infos as possible. If the current pagename is wrong, what's the matter with moving the page? Palazzo del Te would be an easy redirect for the one "astonished" (something I find very weird...) by the correct spelling "Palazzo Te". --Attilios 11:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. Common usage argues slightly in favour of "Palazzo del Te"; selected reliable sources argue slightly in favour of "Palazzo Te"; overall, there is no clear consensus for a move. --Stemonitis 14:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ad links

I do not think it is polite inserting ad links of private companies, such as e.g tourist guides, in the external links. At least they should be handled as information links; this is why it would be surely better inserting only the links to the official service lists, such as, in this case, the official list of the authorized tourist guides for Mantua http://www.turismo.mantova.it/index.php/guida. Of course, this should be true also for every context.