Jump to content

Talk:Leonardo da Vinci/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Pronunciation

There is no phonosyntactic strengthening, after "da", in "da Vinci". No Italian would even think such a pronunciation is even an option, and say: "davvìnci". It's absurd.

—It’s not absurd so much as it is old-fashioned. According to Canepari, it occured in traditional pronunciation of Italian, and may still occur in Tuscany, but not in the rest of Italy. [da ˈviņːʧi] is therefore without a doubt a ‘better’ (more neutral) transcription. More annoying to me is ser Piero being transcribed as [ser piˈero] (sic). Does anyone actually ever pronounce it like that? I’m pretty sure this should be [ˈpjɛːro]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.227.51.21 (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2015

In the fifth paragraph of the outline, "conceptualised" appears to be misspelled. I assume the correct spelling is conceptualized.

He conceptualised flying machines, a type of armoured fighting vehicle, concentrated solar power, an adding machine,[9] and the double hull, also outlining a rudimentary theory of plate tectonics. 207.43.79.38 (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

 Not done It looks like the article is written in British English. Therefore, that spelling would be correct and so would other spellings in the article like; centre and characterisation. Inomyabcs (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Angelo Paratico Leonardo Da Vinci. A Chinese Scholar Lost in Renaissance Italy

This Hong-Kong based journalist has written a book, Leonardo Da Vinci. A Chinese Scholar Lost in Renaissance Italy, which has received considerable publicity, enough to be mentioned in various relevant articles. There has been of course criticism. See for instance [1] (I'm not sure if this meets RS but it gives some context for us), [2], [3], [4], [5] and many other sources. Doug Weller (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

All WP:UNDUE if you ask me. The Isleworth Mona Lisa is pretty dubious (as an original). Here's Dr Bendor Grosvenor off the telly, or Prof. Martin Kemp. Johnbod (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, flaky isn't the word really. By the way, Martin Kemp does a brilliant demolition job. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Unique painting done in France

Hi,

This Herald Tribune'article written in 1959 make me curious. It is written that one painting has been find out by a paint restaurator named Barna de Tothin the 20th century (but before 1959).

This painting is named "Madonna and child" and should be "the only painting he had ever done in France".

Do you know what they talk about? Which painting ?

Laszlo (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Laszlo. I can't find anything to do with art in your link, nor any evidence of a 'Barna de Tothin' anywhere online.
A picture fitting the description could be the The Virgin and Child with St. Anne, which Leonardo had with him in France, but which was probably executed before he moved there. Aternatively, there is a letter from Jan 1507 that mentions a work that was seen and thought 'exceptionally fine' by the French king, possibly referring to a lost original of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder. --Hillbillyholiday talk 02:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Hillbillyholiday,
Sorry it is "Barna de Toth", not "Barna de Tothin". You can check the 9th paragraph which talks about this restauration.
Laszlo (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes, sorry, I missed that paragraph. There is mention online of a Hungarian (not French as the article states) painter by that name, but if he had indeed "Gained fame throughout the world" for his discovery, it seems surprising that there appears to be no record of it anywhere — except the 7 June 1959 Sarasota Herald-Tribune. A most impressive find, Laszlo, but I'm calling shenanigans on Monsieur de Toth, although I'm sure he was being truthful when he said that at the Driftwood Inn "the smorgasbord matched the finest on the continent." --Hillbillyholiday talk 18:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm french but I'm pretty sure you were ironic in your last sentence ;)
Ok, so this article hasn't to be considered as something specialized in art, more like an advertisement/publicity. Right ? Laszlo (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's basically gossip. It's undue and so beyond the fringe, that one would need the Hubble to see it. --Hillbillyholiday talk 20:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Got it! Laszlo (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Anatomy

There is too much detailed information for this article.

There is another article, Science and inventions of Leonardo da Vinci where the topic can be dealt with more fully.

Da Vinci's most revealing studies into anatomy started in 1506 with his dissection of an elderly man. Before this, his dissections studies and illustrations were made of animals. Some of his first human illustrations were inaccurate but still provided skillful observations on the structures, functions, and connections of human anatomy. In 1489, he obtained a human skull. Then in 1513, he began his detailed dissection of approximately 30 bodies.[1] Da Vinci was also a pupil and apprentice to Andrea del Verrocchio. As a successful artist, he was given permission to dissect human corpses at the Hospital of Santa Maria Nuova in Florence and later at hospitals in Milan and Rome.[2] In 1511, Professor Marcantonio della Torre, Da Vinci's anatomy instructor died of plague. Two years after his teacher's death, da Vinci discontinued most of his anatomical projects. His manuscripts, drawings and notes were undiscovered and unpublished for hundreds of years.[1]

Da Vinci performed some very detailed investigations not only into anatomy but also into physiology. He attempted to identify the source of 'emotions' and their expression. His dissections and documentation of muscles, nerves, and vessels helped to describe the physiology and mechanics of movement. He found it difficult to incorporate the prevailing system and theories of bodily humours, but eventually he abandoned these physiological explanations of bodily functions. He made the observations that humours were not located in cerebral spaces or ventricles. He also documented that the humours were not contained in the the heart or the liver, and it was the heart that defined the circulatory system. He was the the first to define atherosclerosis and liver cirrhosis. He created models of the cerebral ventricles with the use of melted wax and constructed a glass aorta to observe the circulation of blood through the aortic valve by using water and grass seed to watch flow patterns. Vesalius published his work on anatomy and physiology in De humani corporis fabrica in 1543.[1]

NOTE: 1. Leonardo is referred to throughout the article as "Leonardo", not as "Da Vinci". 2. The statement: His manuscripts, drawings and notes were undiscovered and unpublished for hundreds of years. is incorrect. His anatomical work was published during the next century. That fact is stated in the paragraph that follows the inserted one. 3. The "humours" need briefly explaining, if they are going to be mentioned at all, otherwise readers will not understand.

Amandajm (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c Jones, Roger (2012). "Leonardo da Vinci: anatomist". British Journal of General Practice. 62 (599): 319–319. doi:10.3399/bjgp12X649241. ISSN 0960-1643.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Sooke was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Francis/Francois

It's sloppy to refer to the king of France as "Francis" once and then a mere few words later as "Francois". Wikipedia is forever being disparaged, and why give ammunition to those who do so? (I disparage it as it is, of course, but I welcome the idea(l) of what it can become.) Wikipedia, please read a good source on copy-editing and why it's important. One place that you might start is to go to a place called Wikipedia.org and read their article on copy-editing. It might be good, assuming it's been copy-edited. Which may not be the case.2604:2000:C682:B600:DCF2:357D:A574:6523 (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

About Leonardo's heritage

Good day, Sirs.

I'd like to suggest a little modification in the article. In recent years, it has been proposed that Leonardo's mother might have been of Arab origin, a hypothesis which has been regarded as groundless. Have a look at this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120100961.html

At the bottom of the first page it claims "What the science says, "generally speaking, is that if your parent has a lot of arches, you'll probably have a lot of arches," said Simon Cole, associate professor of criminology, law and society at the University of California at Irvine. [...] But "you can't predict one person's race from these kinds of incidences," he said, especially if looking at only one finger. "

Most scholars think Leonardo's mother was not a foreign slave, but a national peasant, as stated for example in this link: http://legacy.mos.org/leonardo/bio.html

May I kindly ask to state that clearly in the article? I'd do that myself, but just in case it is regarded as vandalism, I'll let you gentlemen make the decision.

Best regards. Chico duro (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Mitre gate

I have heard he invented the mitre gate, used for canal lock gates everywhere. This is a brilliant invention, simple, clever, effective. The two gates are held shut by the water pressure, pointing towards the higher water level, in the shape of a mitre. The gates can only be opened when the water level is the same on both sides. I personally do not have any references for his invention of it, although I have read about it here and there, for example, in the London Canal Museum. Could we add it in? DMichael6 (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2016

Fetus is spelled wrong, displayed as foetus Geekpersonman (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 01:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Leonardo Da Vinci was not an engineer or inventor

It is important to add this change to section 4.4 on inventions to make this article accurate:

Leonardo Da Vinci was not an engineer or inventor. Engineers, inventors and scientists of his time did not consider him one of their peers, and neither do engineers, inventors or scientists today.

Lenoardo Da Vinci was a great artist who, among other things, drew detailed sketches of fictional machines which would not work in the real world or were less practical than machines which already existed to do the same task.

Because Da Vinci is an artist and not an engineer, his work tends to be viewed and spoken about by artists. Artists, who do not know anything about engineering see his sketches of machines and don't have enough knowledge of physics or engineering to understand that they are science fiction. And some artists tend to be imaginative and to think in terms of concepts rather than reality. So they call him an engineer.

In fact, calling Leonardo Da Vinci an engineer for looking at a bird and then drawing a wing suit for a man without the understanding that bird bones are significantly lighter than human bones and wood, which is part of what lets them fly with such small wings in comparison to heir body size would be no different than calling the author of Harry Potter an inventor for writing about an invisibility cloak or magic wand in a children's book if a real inventor or engineer later engineered those things in a practical way which would work in the real world.

He was at best an amateur improvisor and science fiction theorist, as well as a great artist.

Here is my citation: A web browser search for his inventions - none of which were practical and most of which were not even real world applicable: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Leonardo+da+vinci+inventions&atb=v8&iax=1&ia=images — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.10.194 (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2016

176.183.84.27 (talk) 08:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Leonardo travelled to Hungary?

As I have never before heard of Leonardo's stay in Hungary, I consulted several biographies, and none of them mentions that he ever travelled there. It is true that Ludovico Sforza commissoned Leonardo to execute a painting of St. Mary in April 1485, as a gift for the king of Hungary. But I found no indication that Leonardo himself went to Hungary. Are there any reliable sources for this? If not, that part should be deleted. Der Bischof mit der E-Gitarre (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2017

i am smart so let me edit this article. Benjacanadaz (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball 21:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Birth day

If Leonardo da Vinci's birthday was on april 15th (Old Style) it must be noted that it would be on april 24th (New Style). -Theklan (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci

Leonardo was the one who made the Bronze Horse! He made the inner part and all he needed to do was make the "shell". But then the war started and he never got to finish the beautiful statue, It was going to be almost 40 ft tall. But when the wars started at the first battle he had to get to his home and all of a sudden it started raining and that made the clay soft and made it seep everywhere. Then the solders started shooting arrows at it in which made is worse. Some say that Vinci never was the same again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.89.7 (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leonardo da Vinci. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leonardo da Vinci. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Lady with an Ermine

Da Vinci's Lady with an Ermine

Hi, I would just like to point out that the portrait Lady with an Ermine isn't even described in this article, which is a real disappointment. In 2003 it was said to be a "signal[ling] a breakthrough in the art of psychological portraiture"[1] by critics and belongs to Leonardo's most successful works. Moreover, the portrait has been part of popular culture, similarly to Mona Lisa, since the 1990s. It was featured in Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials, Mike Resnick's novel Lady with an Alien, Fatherland by Robert Harris and in the game Layers of Fear from 2016. The painting was also in the film The Monuments Men, directed by George Clooney and starring Matt Damon, Bill Murray and other notable actors. I think it deserves a thorough mention in the 1490s short section. Best Regards Oliszydlowski, 11:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Leonardo da Vinci and the Splendour of Poland, exhibition February 17, 2003

da Vinci exhibition at the Science Museum of Virginia

I am quite sure that the 2017 da Vinci exhibition at the Science Museum of Virginia is worthy of note in the Leonardo da Vinci article. Thus far my contributions to the article in this regard have been deleted (see article history). I will continue to look for references to prove my point. Here is one I'm exploring now, but I need reviews and commentary from other sources: [1]Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "New "Da Vinci" exhibit debuts in new building at Science Museum of Virginia". Museum & Security. Retrieved 12 June 2017.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2017

{{subst:trim| 

49.145.4.27 (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Lomazzo

Hello again Hillbillyholiday and thank you for being ever watchful for objectivity.

My edit was: In fact, Gian Paolo Lomazzo states that Leonardo painted both a Gioconda and a Mona Lisa.[1].

You deleted the edit stating: In fact, this is open to interpretation -- it has been argued by Kemp that Lomazzo could've been referring to one painting.

I believe you are referring to Kemp’s most recent 2017 publication on Mona Lisa.

Kemp is quite clear that Lomazzo's information, coming directly from the Leonardo’s most trusted student Francesco Melzi, is to be trusted.

Lomazzo, in his 1584 text, states: “Fra quali si veggono quelli di mano di Leonardo, ornate a guisa di primavera, come il ritratto della Gioconda, e di Mona Lisa, ne’ quali ha espresso tra le altre parti maravigliosamente e le faccie delle lor donne amate in vaghissima maniera abbellite”.

Kemp advocates Ockam’s Razor in this book on a number of occasions (the simpler explanation is usually better; the more assumptions you make, the more unlikely the explanation is rooted in fact). Despite this, Kemp makes the following assumptions to explain that Lomazzo was meaning only a Gioconda or a Mona Lisa and not two separate paintings: 1) That Lomazzo heard Melzi using both names and was unsure about which one to use when writing up the result of his encounter. Kemp presents no justification for this assumption.

2) That the printer made a mistake and that the crucial “e” (and) between “Gioconda” and “di Mona Lisa” should have been an “o” (or). To accept such an assumption for which there is also no justification, would mean that anything printed becomes unreliable.

3) Given that Lomazzo speaks of “il ritratto” or “the portrait” [as he translates it], in the middle of the sentence, Kemp argues that he is only talking of only one portrait. However, given that the start of the sentence is: “Fra quali si veggono quelli di mano di Leonardo” (among them there are those by the hand of Leonardo), Lomazzo is clearly writing in the plural. Lomazzo also continues and finishes the sentence in the plural. So, this assumption has no validity.

Simply put, if we apply Ockham's Razor as Kemp advocates, and unless proven otherwise by a credible explanation, Lomazzo refers clearly to two separate paintings. This is the simplest explanation without any assumptions.

I will reinsert my edit. However, if you insist to have Kemp’s view on Lomazzo’s statement appearing, then all of the above together with other experts' opinions on the Lomazzo text should also be inserted to give the reader a fair view. Given that this page is about Leonardo, and not about Lomazzo or Mona Lisa, this does not make much sense to me.

Hope this clarifies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genevieve81 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lomazzo, Gian Paolo (1584). Treatise on the art of painting. Milan.
Please sign your edits with 4 tildes. In fact it is just because "this page is about Leonardo, and not about Lomazzo or Mona Lisa" that the information is not needed here. It raises various questions and baldlyt stated like this will just puzzle the reader. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Johnbod on significance. There's nothing factually wrong with the statement as it stands - there is a picture, perhaps the most famous in the world, which is now known both as the Mona Lisa and as La Gioconda. Quite possibly those titles originally referred to two different works; but that doesn't make the statement as it stands false, and isn't a matter for this page, or at least for that paragraph.
@Genevieve81: More generally, I think you should take a careful look at the Wikipedia Original Research and Neutral Point of View policies. Arguments like the ones you present above are irrelevant; we aren't here to prove things or establish them by logic, but simply to report on the content of other sources; we are a tertiary source, not a secondary source.
I'd go so far as to say that the words 'In fact' should almost never appear in Wikipedia. If something is actually an undisputed fact, the phrase is redundant; if there is any dispute, say who advocates each side of it. "In fact" puts a viewpoint in the mouth of Wikipedia, and is nearly always inappropriate. (WP:EDITORIAL.) TSP (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2017

Changeharass (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Where Leonardo da Vinci was originally buried

This Wiki article states "Leonardo da Vinci was buried in the Chapel of Saint-Hubert in Château d'Amboise in France."

This should be edited to read: "Leonardo da Vinci is thought to be buried (or alleged to be buried) in the Chapel of Saint-Hubert in Château d'Amboise in France."

The reason for this slight but important edit is made clear in the next paragraph where the author(s) discuss the circumstances and history surrounding the burial, excavation and reinternment of the remains of Leonardo Da Vinci.

The facts are:

1) He was not buried in Chapel of Saint-Hubert – burial implies interment at or near time of death while the body is more than just bones.

2) In fact, the Château d'Amboise records shows that he was originally buried in the Chapel of Saint-Florentin whose foundation once lay about 100 meters away from Chapel of St. Hubert. (Not to be confused with the Eglise de Saint-Florentin as is often the case on TripAdvisor reviews of tourist attractions in the town of Amboise)

3) Chapel of Saint-Florentin fell into disrepair to such an extent that by the time of the French Revolution (1789-1799), 270 years after his death, the chapel was deemed irreparable by Napolean's engineering team and it was razed.

4) About 60 years later [allegedly, there are several differing accounts] a complete skeleton was found and transferred reburied in Chapel of St. Hubert.

Therefore, it is incorrect and misleading to write as it does in this wiki article that "Leonardo da Vinci was buried in the Chapel of Saint-Hubert in Château d'Amboise in France." because even though it is more clearly specified in the next paragraph, it obfuscates the facts when it implies that he was buried there originally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigblackbarn (talk • contribs) 18:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

"Descriptions and portraits of Leonardo combine to create an image of a man who was tall, athletic and extremely handsome. He was at least 6 ft 4½ in (1.94 m) tall, the length of his skeleton.[11] Portraits indicate that as an older man, he wore his hair long, at a time when most men wore it cropped short, or reaching to the shoulders. While most men were shaven or wore close-cropped beards, Leonardo's beard flowed over his chest."

The above taken form the wikipedia article is directly plagiarized from http://www.healthfitnessrevolution.com/leonardo-da-vincis-personal-life/ and incorrectly quoted.


The real quote is "Descriptions and portraits of Leonardo combine to create an image of a man who was tall, athletic and extremely handsome. He was at least 5 ft 8 in (1.73 m) tall, the length of his skeleton. Portraits indicate that as an older man, he wore his hair long, at a time when most men wore it cropped short, or reaching to the shoulders. While most men were shaven or wore close-cropped beards, Leonardo’s beard flowed over his chest."

His height needs to be edited to at least 5'8, the correct number according to all reputable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Womishi (talk • contribs) 21:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2018

Hello, I just wanted to tell you that Leonardo Da Vinci is not his actual name because 'Da Vinci' means From Vinci which is a city in Italy. I have found this out from many reliable and trusted sources. It would be great if you could make minor changes to your page regarding what I said. Many thanks for reading and I hope you have considered this idea. 

                                             Yours Sincerely, ThaiSweetChilli.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaiSweetChilli (talk • contribs) 17:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2018

B 165.24.110.82 (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 17:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2018

Add in the concluding parts that Leonardo da Vinci's dreams and blueprints about flying machines, parachutes, submarines were later found to be mostly true. 2405:204:401A:22D6:611A:C200:4AA6:DBB3 (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. QueerFilmNerdtalk 22:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

he liked to go roller skating and try to designa drawi g of a plane so he can ply he had his ear cut of from a robbery that was his punix=shment but it made him a artist what inspiired him was seeing nudes in one of the art classes they had to draw nudes and he loved it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.75.254 (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

de Vinci

The signature sample we have is clearly "de Vinci". We need a comment on that and preferably a source that comments on how commonly and starting when he used that form. --Espoo (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2018

190.158.111.79 (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

leonardo da vici was a viejo lebiano.

thanks

 Not done: no request, spam DannyS712 (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2018

"please change da Vinci's birth date from 15 April to 23 April, because 15 April is the obsolete Julian version, unlike 23 April, which is the Gregorian version and is in use. As, all other Wikipedia articles designate the birth dates and death dates to Gregorian, also providing the Julian Dates like in the case of this article Isaac Newton, I think it would be fair to maintain this principle. Hopefully my request will be granted as I haven't violated any of the aforementioned obligations." Debaditya2000 (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Is Lionardo a caption error?

Below the first photo at top, it says he was born "Lionardo...." Is that correct or an error in the caption?

I also found "Lionardo" within the body of the article but didn't try to research the references there. Misty MH (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Death of Leonardo da Vinci - New details concerning his corpse

May be someone likes to translate these new informations about the corpse of Leonardo for the English version of Wikipedia.

Best Greetings from Duden-Dödel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duden-Dödel (talk • contribs) 09:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

"Museum of Vinci"

The introduction includes the sentence "A number of his most practical inventions are displayed as working models at the Museum of Vinci". I expect this is true, but what and where is the "Museum of Vinci"? There seem to be several candidates. I added a "citation needed". Probably what's really needed is a link and a more exact name. Andrew Dalby 13:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected Request May 2, 2019

Hello from Fukuoka,

I would be grateful for someone to make a small amendment to the "Location of remains" part of the article. It says in the English version that DNA tests were conducted on the remains found in 1863, but according to the Assistant manager of the Amboise Castle, no requests for DNA testings were ever put forward Ouest France article, April 30, 2019 . The findings of 1863 are also more numerous than mentioned in the English version (size of the skeleton, remaining teeth from a 70-year-old man, coin of the correct time period, etc.), if someone feels like translating it.

Best regards, Chiisanawani

Thanks! I've mined that source for as much information as possible, although the lack of requests is probably a moot point, since it didn't give a date and other recent articles say that they are currently waiting for permissions. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Incoming edits

I plan to add several details from the Wallace 1966 source, which is still very relevant for the most part. It mostly helps fill in some details on some areas that are currently fuzzy in the article. I just wanted to give a heads up and create a place of discussion, as it's possible that some new info has come out to correct some of the points. Please state your reasoning if you have some objection, etc. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

a great person in overall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16A2:5541:5446:2C83:EA90:7507:84D (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Paragraph with Grammatical and Stylistic Errors

Hi! I'm new to this but here goes.
In my opinion, the final paragraph of 5.3 Engineering and inventions should be amended due to its informal style and grammatical mistakes, perhaps due to its translation from another language or a lack of familiarity with English on behalf of the author.

  • Casual style: eg. "Broek has done the research on more than..."
  • Grammatical errors: "...a large portion of Leonardos inventions has been make before his lifetime."
Note the incorrect use of present tense "has" and "make", as well as the lack of an apostrophe to denote possession in "Leonardos".
  • Also, requiring rephrasing: "The genius and innovative part of Leonardo´s drawings is"
Note the possessive apostrophe is, in fact, an acute accent (´) not the required (').

In all, each sentence requires some word substitution and restructuring.
Otherwise, a very good read. Thank you!
--J8j6 (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Using a page by "Vinnie" as a source is not a good idea

I'm referring to RickyBennison's edit " However, contrarily to these statements made in regard to the Sun's movement, in one of his notebooks there is a note in the margin which states 'the Sun does not move.'[1] The note is not supported by the other text on the page and its significance is unclear." Whoever this Vinnie is, they say at the bottom "My name is Vinnie J. and I am from Wisconsin. I did Leonardo Da Vinci because he did a lot for Science, and his last name is ALMOST close to" (it ends there, but the reason is obvious. Weebly should never be used, and the last sentence is original research. The word "however" as used fails WP:EDITORIAL.Doug Weller talk 16:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Leonardo Da Vinci". Giants of Science. Retrieved 2 March 2020.
I deleted the section on Leonardo's astronomy because it was too detailed for this article.
A major ongoing problem with this article is that every editor on Wkipedia knows something about Leonardo da Vinci, and they all consider that item of knowledge to be important.
In the past decade, several new Leonardo articles have been started including Science and inventions of Leonardo da Vinci and Personal life of Leonardo da Vinci as well as articles on specific paintings and inventions.
The aim is to keep this article to a manageable size, that a student can read in one sitting, and find links to more detailed info if necessary.
I transferred the information about the astronomy to the article about Lonardo's science and incorporated it into an existent paragraph. I didn't check the reference.
I similarly deleted most of the information recently included about the painting Lady with an ermine because the information which was precise to that painting did not have general reference to Leonardo as a painter, which is what is important here.
Basically, if someone wants to know whether Leonardo really painted Bella Principessa, whether he was a Cathar, whether he invented the bicycle, whether his fingerprints prove he was Arabic, whether he was the lover of Salai, whether he was the head of the Priory of Sion, or if he included musical notation in the Last Supper and the initials LdV in the Mona Lisa's eyeballs..... then this article is not the best place to find that information.
But it is certain to be there, somewhere in the pages of Wikipedia.
Amandajm (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
The quote 'the Sun does not move.' is relatively common in sources on Da Vinci and citing a stronger source for it should not be a problem. It is strange that the quote is used as often as it is as, on balance, Leonardo clearly thought that the Sun did move.
I think the sub-section is important because it is so useful in understanding Leonardo's astronomical understanding, which fundamentally contributed to his world view and psychology. And it shows how he stood on a major area of contemporary study. In terms of a student easily gaining an understanding of Leonardo and his relationship to the world in which he lived, this information is significant. I do not think the section can be called an over-specific addition like perhaps a section devoted to an individual painting may be. The section is concise enough to escape the charge of being too detailed or lengthy. I think an issue some other editors may have is that the section does not look as 'plump' as the others. But I do not see that as a problem because Wikipedia is meant to be grown over time. Other editors could add to the section (perhaps in regard to Earth shine, optics etc.) to make it a fuller section if they wanted. The information within the section (Leonardo's geocentric perspective and his statements made in regard to the movement of the Sun) is clearly significant, arguably fundamental, in terms of understanding Leonardo and his life, and can be included concisely.RickyBennison (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@RickyBennison: none of that explains why you would use a source by someone called Vinnie. Doug Weller talk 11:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
If the article is going to deal in a thorough way with Leonardo as a man of his times, then it needs a section on that topic, not a section on his beliefs about astronomy in particular.
This is a genaral article.
Leonardo's main claim to fame, boh within his lifetime, and now is as a painter. As a painter, he transformed the way in whih other artists saw the world. Caravaggio was dependent on Leonard. Rembrandt, Delacroix, Manet, Dali, Francis Bacon etc etc.
These people, in turn, transformed our way of seing. Without Mona Lisa, the Girl with a pearl earring would not exist. The Maids of Honour and The Night Watch would never have been painted.
Lord Kelvin, Thomas Edison, James Watt, and even the Wright Brothers, on the other hand, were not dependent upon Leonardo da Vinci.
THis is the reason why summaries are inluded of some of Leonardo's greatest works.
But to people reared on TV, ipads, and You Tube, it can be difficult to convey just how important paintings have been in the history of the World. And how they have effected the way that people see.
Vasari describes tha fact that when Leonardo was working on a particula large drawing (probably he one now in the National Gallery, London), people came crowding to see it, every day, as if they were attending a festival.
His sketch books are also summarised, but his attitudes to every different side of science is not needed in this article.
Nothing about Leornardo's attitude to the state of the solar system left a lasting impression on humanity.
Amandajm (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Leonardo's father's name

It is written that Leonardo's father's name was "Piero da Vinci", however 'da Vinci' was a given name only known after Leonardo's birth (coined because of the name of his birthplace). His real name is known only to be Ser Piero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.143.168.47 (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The book by Walter Isaacson cites "Piero da Vinci" . Erick Soares3 (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Piero was a very common name. When the father took his business to Florence, he would almost certainly have used "da Vinci" to distinguish himself.
The crucial matter is that Leonardo was not known as "da Vinci" as in The Da Vinci Code. He was known as Leonardo in the same way that Michelangelo and Raphaello were known by a single personal name.
Botticelli was merely a nickname. The people who are known by two names are those who had brothers who were similarly employed, e.g. the Ghirlandaios and the Pollaiuolos.
Amandajm (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Santa Babila

Please change Santa Babila in San Babila, which is the correct name of the parish still existing in Milan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caligola00 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2020

Hello, I would like to edit the sentence in this article containing the words: "The Mona Lisa is the most famous of his works and the most popular portrait ever made". I believe this is a subjective claim and I am not sure if the whole of society would agree that the Mona Lisa is the most popular portrait ever made. I do not believe an encyclopedia that is supposed to contain objective and educational facts should contain a sentence or claim such as this.

My proposed changes would make the sentence say: "The Mona Lisa is one of the most famous of his works and an extremely well-known portrait around the world." Zachjames123 (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The statement is sourced, so you'll need to find something wrong with the source or a better one. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It's time to fix the opening paragraph

I've been working on various Leonardo works (Portrait of a Musician and La Scapigliata so far, with beginning work on his list of works, Lady with an Ermine and Codex Atlanticus) and I had planned to eventually work on this article to get it up to peer review standard. I was originally going to work on more paintings before turning to this article, but every time I come here I see huge issues in every section and after talking to other users I realized it might be best to slowly work on this article alongside other works. By far biggest issue is the opening paragraph. Let's take it piece by piece: (Please respond to each issue separately)

1st half of the 1st sentence:

Issue

  • The pronunciations clog up the first sentence and make it unnecessarily overwhelming

Proposal
I propose we change it to something like the following:

Leonardo da Vinci (English: /ˌliːəˈnɑːrdoʊ də ˈvɪntʃi, ˌliːoʊˈ-, ˌleɪoʊˈ-/[a] 14/15 April 1452[b] – 2 May 1519), was...

And move the full name to:

"Born Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci (Italian: [leoˈnardo di ˌsɛr ˈpjɛːro da (v)ˈvintʃi] ⓘ) out of wedlock to a notary, Piero da Vinci, and a peasant woman, Caterina...

Considerations

  • I suppose an Italian pronunciation of "Leonardo da Vinci" would make sense in addition?
  • What are the English: /liːoʊˈ-, ˌleɪoʊˈ-/? Are they alternate version of pronouncing "Leonardo"? I'm not super familiar with IPA

Comments

I think the multiple names are simply superfluous. I don't think this straightforward shortening needs mentioning at all, any more than we would feel the need to say Donald John Trump, known as Donald Trump, or Donald Trump, born Donald John Trump. See MOS:LEGALNAME - "It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name."

I don't think the ways the name is pronounced in English are really needed either, especially as the answer seems to be "pretty much in every possible way you could imagine". I think this should just be:

Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci (Italian: [leoˈnardo di ˌsɛr ˈpjɛːro da (v)ˈvintʃi] ⓘ; 14/15 April 1452[b] – 2 May 1519) was ....

Also, are all the notes and references really necessary? I'd think generally that is stuff that should be covered in the article text. TSP (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@TSP: Your solution would ideal for me as well. The reason I suggested differently is because the current format had been there for so long I assumed that there would be push back to something like your suggestion so I proposed a middle ground between your solution and the current format (but perhaps that was unnecessary on my part!). I wonder if @Nardog: can provide some more insight on this (especially the IPA in particular). Aza24 (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

2nd half of the 1st sentence:

Issue:
Describing him as "an Italian polymath of the Renaissance whose areas of interest included science and invention, drawing, painting, sculpture, architecture, music, mathematics, engineering, literature, anatomy, geology, astronomy, botany, paleontology, and cartography."

Frankly, this is messy and really makes it unclear about who he is. Yes had a lot of interests, but lumping painting, invention and architecture with music, botany and geology makes them seem of equal importance and notability to him, when they are obviously not.

Here's how other sources describe him:

  • Grove (Martin Kemp): "Italian painter, sculptor, architect, designer, theorist, engineer and scientist"
  • Britannica: "Italian painter, draftsman, sculptor, architect, and engineer"
  • History.com: "painter, architect, inventor, and student of all things scientific"
  • BBC: "hugely influential as an artist and sculptor but also immensely talented as an engineer, scientist and inventor."
  • Biography.com "Renaissance painter, sculptor, architect, inventor, military engineer and draftsman"

Here's an example from Zhang Heng's (a Chinese polymath) featured article: "was a Chinese polymathic scientist and statesman from Nanyang who lived during the Han dynasty. Educated in the capital cities of Luoyang and Chang'an, he achieved success as an astronomer, mathematician, seismologist, hydraulic engineer, inventor, geographer, cartographer, ethnographer, artist, poet, philosopher, politician, and literary scholar."

Proposal
I think a combination of the sources above and the general format from Zheng Heng's article is the most appropriate way of describing Leonardo. Perhaps something like this:

"was an Italian painter, sculptor, architect, inventor, engineer and polymathic scientist of the Renaissance. His notebooks, which cover his entire career, contain writings on music, mathematics, literature, anatomy, geology, astronomy, botany, paleontology, and cartography."

Considerations

  • Should the first line include "draftsman" or "theorist"?
  • Not sure about the wording of the second sentence here

Comments

I think by the time you've listed six occupations, and list another nine in the next sentence, 'polymath' is superflous; and I think 'polymathic' is needlessly obscure; it's fine without it. Otherwise looks good to me. TSP (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

1st half of the 2nd sentence

Issue
"He has been variously called the father of palaeontology, ichnology, and architecture," What??

  • Palaeontology
    • no ref provided
    • Not as notable as Georges Cuvier
    • The Palaeontology article says this "Leonardo's contributions are central to the history of paleontology", it does not try to make a claim that he is the "father of palaeontology".
    • the only time palaeontology is mentioned in the article is in that he was "influential on early palaeontology"
  • Ichnology
    • A single journal calls him the "founding father of Ichnology"
    • Not mentioned once in the Ichnology article
    • None of the sources I had listed above mention this (although not all of them are equally reliable) and neither do my many Leonardo books (and I have a lot of books!)

Proposal
Delete the entire line of "He has been variously called the father of palaeontology, ichnology, and architecture,"

Considerations
I understand that the article doesn't say "he is the father..." or "is considered the father..." but the phrasing "variously called" is such an unclear term that it simply implies that "he is the father..." or "is considered the father...". Resolved

2nd half of the 2nd sentence

Issue This part makes sense to me but the "despite perhaps only 15 of his paintings having survived" but the number 15 is unsourced and simply untrue. There is so much contention between scholars the his "number of paintings" (or in this case really "number of major works"; see his Major extant works) is really in fluctuation between 10–24. I have seen the number "15" thrown around a lot by news articles, but never by academic sources.

Proposal Changing the line to "(despite no more than 24 of his paintings having survived)" Changed, for the time being

Initial draft

Below is a rough draft of what the opening sentence may look like with these implementations:

Leonardo da Vinci (English: /ˌliːəˈnɑːrdoʊ də ˈvɪntʃi, ˌliːoʊˈ-, ˌleɪoʊˈ-/[c] 14/15 April 1452[b] – 2 May 1519), was an Italian painter, sculptor, architect, inventor, engineer and polymathic scientist of the Renaissance. His notebooks, which cover his entire career, contain writings on music, mathematics, literature, anatomy, geology, astronomy, botany, paleontology, and cartography. He is widely considered one of the greatest painters of all time (despite less than 25 of his paintings having survived).[d]

"Born Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci (Italian: [leoˈnardo di ˌsɛr ˈpjɛːro da (v)ˈvintʃi] ⓘ) out of wedlock to a notary, Piero da Vinci, and a peasant woman, Caterina...

Obviously the opening paragraph may eventually have some expansion but at the moment, the initial formatting and issues of the current opening paragraph need to be addressed. Aza24 (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Wells, John (3 April 2008). Longman Pronunciation Dictionary (3rd ed.). Pearson Longman. ISBN 978-1-4058-8118-0.
  2. ^ Angela Ottino della Chiesa in Leonardo da Vinci, and Reynal & Co., Leonardo da Vinci (William Morrow and Company, 1956)
  3. ^ a b Vezzosi 1997, p. 83.
  4. ^ Wells, John (3 April 2008). Longman Pronunciation Dictionary (3rd ed.). Pearson Longman. ISBN 978-1-4058-8118-0.
  5. ^ Angela Ottino della Chiesa in Leonardo da Vinci, and Reynal & Co., Leonardo da Vinci (William Morrow and Company, 1956)

Notes

  1. ^ LEE-ə-NAR-doh də VIN-chee, LEE-oh-, LAY-oh-;[1]
  2. ^ a b c His birth is recorded in the diary of his paternal grandfather Ser Antonio:[2] "A grandson of mine was born April 15, Saturday, three hours into the night". As it was Florentine time and sunset was 6:40 pm, three hours after sunset would be sometime around 9:40 pm, which was still 14 April by modern reckoning.[3] Cite error: The named reference "birth" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  3. ^ LEE-ə-NAR-doh də VIN-chee, LEE-oh-, LAY-oh-;[4]
  4. ^ There are 24 significant artworks which are ascribed to Leonardo by most art historians, either in whole or in large part. This number is made up principally of paintings on panel but includes two murals, two large drawings on paper, and two works which are in the early stages of preparation. There are a number of other works that have also been variously attributed to him.

Landscape

The caption for the landscape picture says “probably the first true landscape painting in history”. I think this needs a citation, to verify that it is the case, if it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jukhamil (talk • contribs) 11:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I added a citation (other than the one in the nearby prose paragraph) for verification. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

My recent revert

@Pictorex:, it really doesn't matter if you think Baptista de Vilanis didn't exist, I've sourced it and if you wish to complain about the source go to WP:RSN -- also for Walter Isaacson whom you don't seem to like. I have no idea why you think a self-published book is a better source. Your original research doesn't belong in an article. I'm sure the article can be improved, but you didn't do that except by proxy, as I've added an academic source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 17:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Doug Weller talk

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2020

The spelling of paleontology in this article is wrong. 122.170.139.8 (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Have standardized it to palaeontology since this article is written in British English and previously used the British variant before the American variant was inserted. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2020

im a kid that id doing a project on leonardo davinci and I need to know the sourse you yoused 2601:280:5B7F:C720:5462:3CA6:D0C6:F1A0 (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

There are many sources cited throughout the article. Please hover over or click the little numbers to see what source being cited for a particular point. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Music

Leonardo was brought to Milan to play the lute before [Sforza] ... he surpassed all the other musicians who were assembled there. Besides, he was the best improvisatore of his time.

[6]

Is it worth mentioning his supposed musical abilities as mentioned by Vasari? Dark Clouds of Joy (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, will definitely make note of it in the article. There's a well known study (Winternitz, Emanuel (1982). Leonardo da Vinci As a Musician. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-02631-3.) and Grove article on the matter too, though I suspect that the bulk of relevent information will go in his personal life sub article. Aza24 (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Why do we care about the English pronunciation in IPA?

We don't have the Italian pronunciation in this article, yet we know the English one! :D Cradleofalex (talk) 08:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Should be there now. Aza24 (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Sexuality

This section is biased as only modern biographers that have said he was gay have been included, rather than a range of articles and biographies of different views. His court case was dismissed as there was not enough evidence to prove he committed sodomy. When considering historical figures, biographies and evidence closer to the time should carry more weight. TheeFactChecker (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY SOURCES, your rationale is a bit off here. The sources from Leonardo's life (though all are mostly from right after his death) are notoriously dramatized and fictional. I am yet to come across of prominent Leonardo scholar who flat out denies he was homosexual. Regardless, I am not well versed in the intricacies of the matter and am in the process of rewriting the article. I will be sure to look into the matter further once I get to the section in question. Aza24 (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Scholars like to ponder these things, Sexuality of William Shakespeare, David_and_Jonathan#Homoeroticism etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2021

n 208.184.216.254 (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

No request made, no change made. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2021

In the caption for drawing of a fetus it says foetus, which might be a typo and if it is it might be good to change it to fetus TimmyWillRuleTheWorld (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Foetus is an alternate but perfectly valid spelling, mostly used as a British spelling. See [7]. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2021

There is a line containing “supposably”, which is not a word. It should read supposedly. 2001:569:7D23:3500:4886:D96B:316F:F0CD (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Not done. "Supposably" is a word; it means "imaginably". Here's a link explaining. Ewulp (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2021

I'd like to insert the pix of the biggest 3d Da Vinci portrait:

File:IMG-20210618-WA0001.jpg

Best regards vnm Vinima (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There are already plenty of images in the article, I don't think this image illustrates anything extra. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leonardo_da_Vinci/Archive_9&oldid=1240581928"