Talk:Niccolò di Giovanni Fiorentino

Untitled

If anyone needs the translation of the parts of the cited article, I'll do it (only part, remember the copyright issues). Kubura (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Since Fiorentino is of tuscan born (as the article says) it's more corret to call him with the italian name. It has no sense at all to call him with a foreign (for him) name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.219.229 (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Move

I'm gonna move the page under the title Niccolò di Giovanni Fiorentino, just to remove the actual nonsense. Any objections?--Theirrulez (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I object. I really do. I object to your insistence that absolutely everything here should be Italian or Italianised. I object to your attitude, which accuses anyone that opposes you of edit warring. I object to your belligerence, in which you insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong. I object to your intolerance. I object to the fact that just about everything you involve yourself in is anti-Yugoslavia and pro-Italia. You are not here to improve the encyclopedia. Matteo, you are an Italian imperialist. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Always nice to be attacked so openly. You gonna bother me attacking everyway. Do you think this article is something a bit similar to an encyclopedic article?? It's just a non sense you know. Who's Matteo, who do you mean? --Theirrulez (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to go on like I didn't read your insults above, so considering Niccolò di Giovanni Fiorentino is the original name of this Italian artist, and that is by far more common in English language, could you provide me -seriously- a reason for not moving the article under the right title? --Theirrulez (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You can do a Google Books search as is your normal modus operandi. Which is the more common name in the English sources? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Is Niccolo Fiorentino, by far. --Theirrulez (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Only if you include hits for Niccolo Spinelli. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Not at all.

"Niccolo Fiorentino" is not only his original name, but is even six time more common in google web, books and scholar, (If you want I can add hits for "Niccolo di Giovanni" and "Niccolo di Giovanni Fiorentino" so it becomes twelve times more common). Any other serious argument for not moving under the right name? - Theirrulez (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

[ Again] with this italianization. This campaign is becoming outrageous. Your move will be instantly reverted. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. If reverted it's possible it will be follow by a report for move-warring under the term of ARBCOM. I politely asked for some serious reasons for not moving the page under the right title and I didn't get anyone yet, so if you want to partecipate to the discussion, please do it, but constructively, without put on usual nationalist matters, because this way is making tired too many users on too many talks. - Theirrulez (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Theirrulez, since you propose this move, and since it is opposed, it is for you to present a serious justification, not for others to say why it should not take place. Now, please provide some serious data demonstrating that the more commonly used English name is not Nikola Firentinac, but Niccolo Fiorentino. Please ensure that your data excludes the goldsmith and medallist Niccolo Spinelli aka Niccolo Fiorentino. Many thanks in advance, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be very educational for you if you did actually start move-warring. I certainly can't stop you... and you were very polite... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is Niccolo Spinelli? I don't know, I just got some very clearyifing google results, so try to understand that you have to provide some good reasons, not your usual fuzzy nationalist matters. I'm not asking too much, I believe. --Theirrulez (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Try to understand, do your absolute best: we don't have to do anything. You do. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Niccolò di Forzore Spinelli, called Niccolò Fiorentino (1430-1514) was a prominent goldsmith and medallist in Renaissance Florence. The fact that you don't know about him is somewhat skewing your search results, sadly. You are returning results for two different people. Somehow you will have to exclude him from your searches or count them manually. Most of the references to Niccolò Fiorentino are in numismatic publications and refer to Spinelli, not the guy we are looking for. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Alasdair, I know of course. :) However it's enough to exclude -Spinelli from the key (he's not as popular as Niccolo Fiorentino) and you can check by yourself. Niccolo Fiorentino it's 6 time more common. - Theirrulez (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My friend, sorry for not realising you knew about Spinelli. Your words "Who is Niccolo Spinelli? I don't know" kind of somehow led me to think erroneously you had never heard of him. An easy mistake to make, under the circumstances. Regarding -Spinelli from the key, I don't think it's enough at all. I've tried it, and it still shows heaps of hits for Spinelli (way more than for the guy we are looking for), and who is, by the way, immensely better known than our man. I'm amazed we don't yet have an article on him. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't be sorry, I was hironic, so it's explained the misunderstanding. Excluding Spinelli by the search is much more than enough, it excludes also many hits about our Niccolo Fiorentino. And it moreover easy to show, cause "Nikola Firentinac" get very few hits on each google search. --Theirrulez (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all. There's also the problem that these searches turn up yet a third guy, Dello (di Niccolo) Fiorentino [1], who was a Tuscan painter who I had never heard of. Then a fourth, Andrea di Niccolò Fiorentino [2], and a fifth, Lorenzo di Niccolo Fiorentino [3], and a mathematician [4] who is not our man either. So even my search, which was "niccolo fiorentino" -bronze -medallion -spinelli -medal -medallist -goldsmith -coin -coins -medals, by which I tried to exclude Spinelli, turns up 194 hits, most of which are not for our man at all. Many seem to be for the painter, some for Spinelli, some for the other guys, but most aren't even in English (yes, even though I searched for English results only), such as French ones that talk about "d'une médaille de Niccolo Fiorentino" and so on, which is obviously Spinelli. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Andrea di Niccolo Fiorentino" has only one hit, "Lorenzo di Niccolo Fiorentino" got only two, while "Dello di Niccolo Fiorentino" has only three hits. Some of them are pupils of Niccolo (di Niccolo Fiorentino) during his collaborations with Donatello, so are anyways pertinents. Even not including this 6 hits the disproportion is huge the same. I got about 600 sources referring to Niccolo Fiorentino against less than 90 about Nikola Firentinac (whose most of them are quite trivial or travelguides). --Theirrulez (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

600 hits where, and what were your search terms? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Google Books "Niccolo Fiorentino" -Spinelli --Theirrulez (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. I've checked the first 50 on that search. Only four are definitely about our man. The vast majority are for Spinelli. All the ones referring to medals etc are Spinelli. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you don't check accurately, in the first 200 hits more than 150 are about our man, and about 50 mentioned both, because you know, art historiographist often confuse them even becouse both were pupils of Donatello, and this is important because it's however pertinent for the diffusion of the name. On the other side if we excluded Croatia Travel Guide, we would get less than 40 hits! So if you haave a good reason it shuldn't be related with numbers.--Theirrulez (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have checked accurately. Unless you can come up with some reasonable evidence to support your suggestion that this article is incorrectly named, I believe this discussion is closed. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. I gave a very evident reason to restore as title the original name of the artist and to stop this non sense. Google search (web books scholar) show a predominancy of Niccolo Fiorentino 6:1. Then we must use native name when possible. What more? I asked you a good reason and you was only able to give me 6 (six) hits in your opinion didn't match the searching key. Please try again, putting aside any nationalism, so the article can only take benefit from it. --Theirrulez (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

For heaven's sake. This is absurd. Anybody, anybody can see that hardly any of your hits refer to our Niccolò Fiorentino. Nearly all of them refer to Spinelli (medal, medals, medallions, and so on), followed by the artist in second place. Our man is - possibly - in third place, but I doubt it. If you can find more than 25 hits for our man in the first 200 (where you claim there are 150) I would be astonished. Put them on this page so we can all see them. Go ahead. Do it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You want to follow the same method used for Fausto Veranzio? Well, anyways, you should understand that there's no monography about Niccolo Fiorentino, but only esays on his period, so it's quite obvious Spinelli and Fiorentino are cited both in the same source, moreover as I said they were both pupils of Donatello and many historiographist still are doubtful about the possibility that they were the same person. I check google results and I still see it's evident the page needs to be moved: 600 hits against 90, you should be able to demonstrate that at least 500 hits are completely not related to Niccolo Fiorentino.. I reasonably believe it would be another non sense. --Theirrulez (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) You are a funny guy Theirrulez. We can both see the same sources, yet you seem to be able to see references to our guy in sources about Spinelli. Are they in invisible ink? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not funny, but serious I suppose. And that's not fun, at all. I already widely explain about hits and sources, Niccolo Fiorentini, and his pupils, Donatello, etc. what do you need more? Anyways don't forget even if we had as few hits as Nikola Firentinac we should prefer the native name, per policies. Theirrulez (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The sources are there for everybody to see. As are your "explanations". AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirect page

I tried to follow the discussion that has driven to the current choice to redirect the page Niccolo Fiorentino to Nikola Firentinac. It took me a good hour. I must confess I do not understand why someone should not be called with his/her native name. Of course there are exceptions, e.g. if someone obtained glory and fame in another country or if got completely educated in another country of if took the himself/herself the decision to change name. We are not in such circumstances. Niccolo Fiorentino bord in Tuscany and worked in Dalmatia, at a time when Dalmatia was part of the Republic of Venice. Many centuries later the borders of that part of the world changed. Is this a reason to change the name of someone? IMHO the page should be directed to the native name and in the article reported the Croatian equivalent. Also at it is today the article makes no sense. The name of the article is "Nikola Firentinac" to please someone but after in the article we call him "Niccolo'"... this is a no-sense. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I have gone trough the talk and cannot find a good reason to direct to the Croatian version of the name. I would like to have a discussion but apparently no-one bother. Well, I redirect the page (not because I am 100% sure it's the right thing to do) but because like that the discussion will start. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't move pages by copy&paste in the future, use the move function instead. (I've fixed that now.) If anyone objects, they can move it back, and then there's WP:RM. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I see. For some reasons I could not move the page normally. --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)