Talk:Albrecht Dürer

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as High-importance).

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lutheranism Low‑importance

	Albrecht Dürer is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.LutheranismWikipedia:WikiProject LutheranismTemplate:WikiProject LutheranismLutheranism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

This article 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts

Germany Top‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 5.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chibi-Aziza.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IPA 'tour'?

'ʊər' might sound like 'tour' in some accents, but is certainly not universal. Is there not a better comparison? Devgirl (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Death cause

I'd suggest this change to the article, regarding its cause of death:

Having secured his pension, Dürer finally returned home in July 1521, having caught an undetermined illness. It has been theorized that his illness—which afflicted him for the rest of his life, and greatly reduced his rate of work^[1]—was malaria^[2], but more recent studies discredit that theory^[3].

Mind Booster Noori (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a modified version, cutting malaria altogether. Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cite error: The named reference Bartrum was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Panofsky
^ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20924705/

English Name

In the "other names" section of the infobox, perhaps a former English version of his name, "Albert Durer," should also be included for historical recognition purposes. This version of his name was used by, e.g., Herman Melville (1819-1891) in Ch. 57 of Moby Dick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.48.37 (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox notable parameters content

As a matter of formality, I am posting the argument here although since I have changed about 100 WP:WPVA articles with about 250 links, I think the project page is more appropriate. Based on MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which explains the infobox purpose is to expalin "key facts at a glance", I believe selected specific works belong in the notable works parameter in the infobox. I propose Melencolia I, Knight, Death and the Devil & Self-Portrait. User:Fram reverts to List of paintings by Albrecht Dürer, List of engravings by Albrecht Dürer and List of woodcuts by Albrecht Dürer, which I think are inappropriate because they represent a complete compendium of his life's works.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:11, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, if there is a disagreement about editing, talking about it on the talk page is not just a "matter of formality." Your choices are pretty much "talk about it" or "stop doing what you're doing." That said, of the three suggested individual works, Melencolia I is the only I'd consider including. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse from Apocalypse (Dürer) is more widely used in my experience, as is Adam and Eve (Dürer). Since you don't have a consensus for removing the lists, I'd say just do both, leave the lists and add a few individual works. Asparagusstar (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Asparagusstar, if you are not following at WP:WPVA, I have recently embarked on adding Specific works of visual art listed at WP:VA to notable works parameters in biographies. This entailed adding just under 250 paintings, sculptures and other works to about 100 bios. Durer happens to be one of 8 WP:VA4 sculptors and painters with no specific painting or sculpture works listed at VA. However, he has two engravings listed among the specific works of visual arts. Since I was just putting forth VAs in the notable works parameter, I am putting forth Melencolia I & Knight, Death and the Devil to treat all VAs equally. User:Fram considers Self-Portrait (Dürer, Munich) to be more notable than both of these. You are now putting forth Apocalypse (Dürer) and Adam and Eve (Dürer). So we have 3 lists, 2 VAs and 3 sort of random selections. I could either put the 3 lists and the 2 VAs or the 3 lists, 2 VAs plus the other 3. What are you suggesting?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think my suggestion was pretty clear: "leave the lists [in the infobox] and add a few individual works." I've already given you suggestions for which works. It sounds like you also have suggestions from Fram. This is a group project, so try to take everyone's suggestions. Thanks. Asparagusstar (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider the self-portrait as "more" notable than Melencolia, though I do consider it as more notable than Four Horsemen. Plus, only having two engravings, as you did originally, was a poor choice anyway. And like I said at the other discussion, the lists, which you consider to be inappropriate, are the standard choice for e.g. composers and modern musicians. In any case, in general when you get pushback against an edit, the article talk page is the right place to discuss this, certainly when it isn't some obscure article with very few watchers. I agree with Asparagusstar that if we list individual works, Adam and Eve would be a good choice as well. Fram (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asparagusstar, Fram, and Ceoil:, you may have seen my comment over at WT:WPVA in response to Ceoil. If not it goes like this.

The WP:LEAD, which includes the WP:INFOBOX (to the right of the LEAD on desktop and after first paragraph of LEAD on mobile) is supposed to be an editorial summary of the main body of the article. The LEAD does not require sources because it summarizes the main body where sourced content is required. We should summarize an article based on its main body. The notable works parameter of infoboxes should be the works that are most notable based on the presentation of the main body. Adding specific works from the VA list is [not] the same thing as that. If we all our artist bios were fully fleshed out WP:FA-level artist bios (as determined by editorial consensus) summarizing their LEADs (including the INFOBOX) is problematic. I was attempting to figure out a quick and dirty way to augment notable works parameters with content that is supposed to be an editorial consensus. VA should be the best current approximation of an editorial consensus since involved parties are suppose to look at the list and assess whether the current listings belong or should be displaced (via add/remove/swap nomination process). Asparagusstar and Fram have made specific works suggestions that disagree. We should agree that the proper way to fill in the notable works parameter is as a summary of the main body content not either of you racking your own brains for what the most notable works are. Asparagusstar has stated that previously presented suggestions don't need to be repeated and that as a group project we should "take everyone's suggestions". I don't think this is correct. I believe each of you should be saying based on the content of the main body of the article X, Y and Z are the notable works that should be in the Infobox. I don't really thing a well-thought out response to that would include list articles, but each editor is free to assess the main body individually. So I am asking each of you which are the notable works based on the main body of the article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors have already discussed this topic and disagreed with you. Asparagusstar (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What Asparagusstar said. VA has nothing to do with the remainder of your argument, and I note that e.g. List of woodcuts by Albrecht Dürer is already linked in the lead of the article. And hey, further in the lead we have a link to List of engravings by Albrecht Dürer. The body of the article discusses way too many works to include them individually, because Dürer is extremely important, and has many, many works which ar individually notable and influential. The links to the three list articles works as a useful, neutral summary of the body. Fram (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per Asparagusstar. Ceoil (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of you read my statement at 14:33 which said adding the list from VA was wrong and the proper thing to do is summarize the main body. This had nothing to do with anything I said above. User:Asparagusstar basically TLDRed my 14:33 and assumed I was repeating an earlier argument. My question is which specific works do you feel the main body highlights as most notable. No one has previously responded to this query. Are you saying my new point that the Infobox (as part of the LEAD) is suppose to be a summary of the main body is wrong? This is a new point which has not been discussed her or at WP:WPVA.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn´t say that though, you said that VA is the best for this. Anyway, I explained why the list articles are the best summary for this article. Fram (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At 14:33 I said "We should agree that the proper way to fill in the notable works parameter is as a summary of the main body content" not that VA is the best. I only explained why I had previously thought VA was a reasonable first attempt. At no point has Asparagusstar stated any relation between his specific works suggestions and the main body and Ceoil mirrored Asparagusstar.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You literally said "VA should be the best current approximation of an editorial consensus" and "Adding specific works from the VA list is the same thing as that." In what way is that saying your use of VA was wrong? I think there is only one person who misunderstood your 14:33 post, which is sad because you wrote it. In any case, I have responded enough, and consensus here is quite clear. Fram (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was a typo. It was suppose to summarize what I said earlier at WP:WPVA where I said " I understand that what I was doing was not that."-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)P.S. The above discussion's directive was to include both the lists and some specific works. Fram sort of responded but did not provide any help assessing which specific works to go with, Asparagusstar did not and Ceoil mirrored Asparagusstar.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just the lists, nothing more, would be best. Fram (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the main body, there is a lot of emphasis on specific books that have their own sections isn't there?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do people here disagree that the LEAD (which included the infobox to the right on desktop and following the first paragraph on mobile), is supposed to summarize the main body. When User:Asparagusstar said "talk about it" or "stop doing what you're doing." I assumed this might result in a discussion of what is suppose to be in the notable works parameter. I'm here to say I'd be happy to talk about it. Thus, I'd like to note that I don't buy the stated rationale "Apocalypse (Dürer) is more widely used in my experience, as is Adam and Eve (Dürer)" as properly assessing how to summarize the main body as it is presented. I don't know art of this era, but I am just trying to work towards what should be in the parameter.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, you're not listening, bludgeoning and wiki-lawaring. The objections are clear; your moving goalposts and fundamentally misunderstanding that the Vital Articles list was cobbled together by random editors and has no standing anywhere else on the project. I find it personally depressing that I now might have to say this to you over and over on multiple artist's talk pages in the coming months - until you move onto a different project. Ceoil (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you too are continuing to object to my vital articles additions, which I have already stated above that I have backed off of (14:33, 14 August 2025 — with confusing typo that was later corrected — 16:52, 14 August 2025, 17:28, 14 August 2025 and 17:52, 14 August 2025)I currently assert that given resistance to my edits, conflicting editors should attempt to resolve differences on talk pages. I wanted to do it on the project page, but here we are. I will repeat again that I believe the disagreement should be resolved by discussing what seems to be notable based on the main body content of the article. I welcome any and all of you to discuss what the main body seems present as notable.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page is supposed to be used to try to come to common ground when editorial content disagreements occur. I am not moving goal posts. I am shifting based on my understanding of the disagreement. Adding vital articles was a first attempt to fill in the notable works parameter in infoboxes. That met with objection. All respondents have disputed the addition of the vital article content on this page. I do not contest tnis. User:Fram prefers just the list, which was the preexisting status quo. I think the parameter is for specific works. User:Asparagusstar arrived and suggested a compromise was to include both lists and specific works. Both Fram and Asparagusstar have named different specific works from those that I added on first attempt. Asparagusstar has suggested to take everyone's suggestions. I have conceded that the vital articles may not works as the rule for specific work suggestions on this page. After understand that for this subject vital articles was not met with acceptance, I am trying to figure out which specific works to add. Why are you even bringing up the vital articles list. Since vital articles were not accepted on this page, I am trying to come to an understanding on which specific works to add to the parameter here. I am trying to determine if people here believe that the notable works parameter of the infobox should be evaluated the same way I do if we are not going to use vital articles. I think if we are not going to use the vital articles list we should attempt to summarize the content currently in the main body of the articles by assessing what the main body points to as his most notable works. This is not moving the goal posts, it is an attempt to respond to the objection to vital articles as a source for specific works. We obviously have to determine some way to evaluate what works are notable. No one seems to want to discuss which notable works seem notable based on the main body. I believe the infobox is part of the WP:LEAD and the LEAD is supposed to summarize main body. So can we discuss which specific works seem most notable based on the content of the main body.

There seems to be a lot being made of whether I am hearing what is being said here. This is what I hear:

Fram asserts lists are neutral summary of the body 14:58, 14 August 2025 and would like to revert to just lists 17:41, 14 August 2025

Note 3rd party Asparagusstar has twice (22:27, 7 August 2025 and 04:49, 8 August 2025) asserted: that we should leave the lists [in the infobox] and add a few individual works.

Both Fram and Asparagusstar have commented on specific works, but my impression is that these comments are based on personal opinio/experience/expertise

Ceoil has stated nothing about specific works although he seems to support Asparagusstar-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the list of links that have been suggested for the notable works parameter (not necessarily under consideration now, but this is what we have considered):

List of paintings by Albrecht Dürer-preexisting status quo (supported by Fram) replaced by specific works 17:34, August 2, 2025 by me; restored by Fram 07:35, August 6, 2025 replaced by specific works 10:56, August 6, 2025; reverted by Fram 11:15, August 6, 2025
List of engravings by Albrecht Dürer-preexisting status quo (supported by Fram) replaced by specific works 17:34, August 2, 2025 by me; restored by Fram 07:35, August 6, 2025 replaced by specific works 10:56, August 6, 2025; reverted by Fram 11:15, August 6, 2025
List of woodcuts by Albrecht Dürer-preexisting status quo (supported by Fram) replaced by specific works 17:34, August 2, 2025 by me; restored by Fram 07:35, August 6, 2025 replaced by specific works 10:56, August 6, 2025; reverted by Fram 11:15, August 6, 2025
Melencolia I (added to article 17:34, August 2, 2025 by me; reverted by Fram 07:35, August 6, 2025, added by me (along with work mentioned by Fram) 10:56, August 6, 2025; reverted by Fram 11:15, August 6, 2025 only one of three most recent additions Asparagusstar would consider 22:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC) at least as important as Self-Portrait to Fram 07:33, 8 August 2025
Knight, Death and the Devil (added to article 17:34, August 2, 2025 by me; reverted by Fram 07:35, August 6, 2025, added by me (along with work mentioned by Fram) 10:56, August 6, 2025; reverted by Fram 11:15, August 6, 2025
Self-Portrait (Dürer, Munich) Fram mentioned at WT:WPVA 07:34, 6 August 2025, added by me (as mentioned by Fram) 10:56, August 6, 2025; reverted by Fram 11:15, August 6, 2025
The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse from Apocalypse (Dürer) mentioned above by Asparagusstar as more used than Melencolia 22:27, 7 August 2025 Fram states that this is less vital than Melencolia I and Self-Portrait 07:33, 8 August 2025
Adam and Eve (Dürer) mentioned above by Asparagusstar 22:27, 7 August 2025 mentioned above by Asparagusstar as more used than Melencolia 22:27, 7 August 2025 Fram agreed with this suggestion 07:33, 8 August 2025

I would welcome any of you to a discussion of what the main body seems to present as important. Here is my opinion on what the main body seems to present as important. Portrait of the Artist Holding a Thistle (held at the Louvre), Adam and Eve (Dürer) (only existing engraving signed with his full name), Dürer's Rhinoceros (remains one of his best-known and was still used in some German school science text-books as late as last century), Four Books on Measurement and Four Books on Human Proportion (these two books seem to be allocated more text space than any other works).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you further say distracts from the core issue that we don't want the infobox to contain an arbitrary list of "best known works". Now with "welcome any of you to a discussion" is further sealoining, and is especially unwelcome from somebody who has repeatedly said that they "know nothing about art history". The justification for Dürer's Rhinoceros is laughable bty. Ceoil (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The books are allocated more space because they haven´t been spun off in longer, detailed separate articles like some more important works. I´m really tempted to oppose your ANI attempt to lift your partial GA ban, with a suggestion to add a limited comments ban, and/or some kind of project ban. You just don´t know when to drop the stick and stop beating the dead horse. You are way iut if your depths in this discussion and just wasting everyone´s time. Fram (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[Bartrum-1] Cite error: The named reference Bartrum was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[2] Panofsky

[3] ttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20924705/

[1]

[2]

[3]