User talk:Becsh

I agree with your deletion of "They have a pale, serene, unearthly beauty," because that sentence is an unsupported opinion. I am writing to ask about your explanation for your edit, which was "tone." Is "tone" a Wikipedia term of art? If so, does a list of such terms exist? I am aware of Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations, and I wondered whether there is a similar site for terms of art. Thanks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi! I've been making a few edits to Fra Angelico as part of a tone cleanup, but I have a bad habit of writing very brief edit summaries when working on an article across multiple edits (often I'll just put 'c-e' meaning copy-edit, for example). I should probably have put WP:TONE instead - Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone, but WP:POETIC, WP:AESTHETIC or MOS:PEACOCK would do better, since this these are more specific. In short, it isn't an art term, but all of these shortcuts are describing tone.

That said, it would be nice to discuss further this with other editors (like yourself!) as I do find the MOS:VA page lacking with regards to clear policies for editors just breaking into visual arts articles. It is incredibly helpful with regards to consistency/formatting across articles, but it would be helpful to have one page that joins together some of the recurring issues that affect articles about art. Being able to point editors using a variety of poetic/aesthetic/peacock language to one helpful page addressing the issues with such language would offer a useful example of the style to emulate and avoid. Becsh (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Last published version of section (removed): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jp1008/sandbox/Marian_Iconography_in_Santa_Maria_del_Fiore_PUB

Chapter from Verdon’s book for your reference: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SkKBBvg1ld4EkbMWGvMWoTsyouiVh8Lq4Y84DQLxtHI/edit?usp=drivesdk

Hi Besch! Thanks for your offer to help polishing this section. To be honest, I have started to think that all this is too much detail for this article. I gather from your offer and the large amount of time you have dedicated to write your comments that you think the content has value and it is worth to keep this long section. But is it? I would value your opinion as to why. Jp1008 (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello! I do think that there is value in expanding the article to reflect how art/architecture historians have approached the cathedral, but I'm not sure it needs to be in different sections in the way your edits originally presented it. I'd definitely support a single 'Marian art in the Cathedral' section that draws heavily from Verdon and other writers (Verdon's bibliography might be of use here). Becsh (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for the suggestion. That would make it more compact indeed. Jp1008 (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchroCat. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchroCat/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 15, 2026 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchroCat/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, DatGuy ^Talk _Contribs 10:36, 1 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]