Template talk:Rubens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 

Unwieldy[edit]

This template is becoming rather unwieldy? I suggest removing some of the more loosely related subjects, like his grandson (only born afte Rubens' death, so no importance for Rubens)n the link to Dutch Golden Age Painting, and the "Related" and "Public Collections" sections, which could be nearly endless (he worked for many, many patrons, and his works are in many, many collections and such a list should certainly include the Louvre and the Hermitage). The link to Rubenshuis (which should remain) can be moved to the family section, as it was the family house. Fram (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree, like this it is a very good vieuw of all Rubens related articles, and promotes the knoledge of his life and important family.--Carolus (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Someone like his grandson really wasn't important though in his own right, and not important for PP Rubens at all, and some of the others seem like utterly random selections (why these collections and not others? Why these patrons and friends and not others?). Fram (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
you are very unpatient, i do not have the time to clean up the mess of the past, you only give critic and do nothing at all. --Carolus (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
? I haven't said that the problems are your fault, or that you need to clean them up? I started a general discussion about this template, which I have neglected for too long. I could have done something and simply implemented my preferred changes, but I have a feeling that you wouldn't have liked this. Instead, I started a discussion here to have input about this template, not to attack an editor or to get attacked by an editor (FYI, I was editing the template already in 2013...). Fram (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)