This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Medici Chapels is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Medici Chapels was copied or moved into Sagrestia Nuova with this edit on 3 February 2024. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Isn't the Old Sacristy also a 'Medici Chapel'? I had assumed until now that the plural Cappelle Medici referred to three chapels, not two. Ham 19:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Were this a ballot the outcome would be simple, but it is not determined on weight of numbers but in weight of arguments and policy (if necessary). Studying the various arguments put forward, one editor offers a merge target of a single article on the art works as a pair. While this has intellectual appeal, no other editors support that suggestion so I have discounted it. That the editor putting the opposition argument is indeffed is not a reason to discount their opinon. Their block has no bearing on this matter. While there is intellectual appeal in their argument, it is outweighed by the counter arguments that redirects will alwasy find the sections on each art work. My conclusiom is that, while it is a close decision, nothing is lost and the greater good is served by closing as Merge as proposed, with correct section based redirects. This is without prejudice to a consensus based split at some future time. FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 17:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dawn (Michelangelo) and Dusk (Michelangelo) are long-standing stubs which would be given better context by being discussed together on one section on their permanent location, where there is already some helpful further description. Klbrain (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. Nom sets out the reasons well; there's no point in forcing readers to jump between three articles to get all the information. Narky Blert (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further, Dawn and Dusk were designed and created as a pair, and so they still are today - and both are part of a larger monument, the tomb of Lorenzo de' Medici, which was designed as a whole, and is not a collection of parts. None of its elements can be properly understood in isolation. Narky Blert (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge per both Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: A single, sub-article discussing the two sounds better to me, especially since they've never been exhibited apart / aren't intended to be. I think it would be better, however, if the statues all had a single article, with an excerpted section in the Medici chapel article. —WingedSerif (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Klbrain, that an article, that measures up to our inclusion standards, seems short should not be used to justify a merge. What make the wikipedia a powerful tool for our readers is not the actual information it contains. Rather it is that the information the wikipedia contains is richly interlinked. Your suggestion would remove the wikilinks between related articles, if your merge takes place. That makes the wikipedia less useful.
Like many merge proposals, no offense, you don't seem to have thought about these topics from any POV but your own personal POV. You seem to have assumed that anyone interested in these two sculptures could only be interested in them within the context of the Medici Chapel. You seem to have assumed that since anyone interested in these two sculptures was really interested in the Medici Chapel, there would be no downside to forcing them to read the article on the Medici Chapel.
But what about the reader who is interested in artistic representation of Dawn, or of Dusk? To those readers the Medici Chapel information is an annoying distraction.
Please be more open-minded in future. Geo Swan (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan: there's no loss of linking, as the sculpture pages will redirect to relevant sections on the Medici Chapel page. So, anyone interested only in the sculpture can go directly to them, without needing to read whole Medici Chapel page. The proposal also removes the current duplication, and ensures that all readers find what they need on one page, rather than two. Klbrain (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – better in context, and there's plenty of room. Ewulp (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Sagrestia Nuova (New Sacristy) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
