Open main menu

PasquinoEdit

Can you help movbe this back? Someone with no information and no experience with the literature on this subject has moved this page from Pasquino, with the result that it now says "Pasquin (Italian Pasquino, Latin Pasquillus) was the name ordinary Romans gave to a battered ancient statue " This is incorrect: the name ordinary Romans gave and still to the battered ancient statue is Pasquino O Knowledgeable reader, can you move this back to its correct title?--Wetman (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

motivationEdit

So why did the Cardinal post the Latin epigrams in the first place? And why here? 88.128.80.172 (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

restoration in the newsEdit

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/05/04/talking-statues-rome.html The talking statues are up for restoration, and Italy wants to prohibit the pasquinades on them. For shame. 68.30.115.233 (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Ray


Suggestion to splitEdit

The hatnote on this article says it is about a "genre of anonymous lampooning", yet the first paragraph talks about the statue, Pasquino. Perhaps someone added a redirect to have a link to *something* for pasquinade. In any case, we now have two distinct subjects, one about an interesting and arguably relatively important literary genre, and another about the statue where it all began.

Anyone opposed to: Splitting this article into Pasquino and Pasquinade? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacedance (talkcontribs) 21:42, November 6, 2014 (UTC)

These are two distinct subjects, but I think that at present the article is too short to split. I don't see why we shouldn't leave the two subjects in the same article, seeing that they are so closely related. Maybe the content should be reorganized so that the two subjects become more evident. This will make a redirect for Pasquinades that links to a section in the article more useful, which may ultimately lead to more content, thus allowing the articles to be split. Thoughts? My Gussie (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
No sign yet that the article is becoming unmanageable. Wetman (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it is unmanageable, it is a mess. A type of sculpture =/= a type of literary work. We totally need an undependent article about pasquil/pasquinade. It is ridiculous for a reader to follow a link from a literary work and find itself in an article about a type of sculpture. "This poem is a type of a sculpture". This does not compute. Split needed ASAP. Ping User:Pharos, User:Henryk Tannhäuser --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pasquino. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 14:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Return to "Pasquino" page.