Talk:Renaissance

Multiple undefined named references produce visible "Cite error" text throughout the article

Several named references are invoked in the body but never defined, so the rendered article displays raw error text to readers. The following visible errors appear:

• In the lead: Cite error: The named reference jkdiwan was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
• In §1.1 Italian Renaissance: Cite error: The named reference brotton was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
• In §3.1 Latin and Greek phases of Renaissance humanism: Cite error: The named reference Britannica1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
• In §3.4 Cultural conditions in Florence: Cite error: The named reference strathern was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Each of these is a live rendering error — the placeholder text is what the reader currently sees at those citation points. Each named ref needs either a proper full definition somewhere in the article or removal of the orphan <ref name="..."/> invocation. Note that brotton and strathern correspond to works (Brotton, The Renaissance: A Very Short Introduction, 2006; Strathern, The Medici: Godfathers of the Renaissance, 2003) that are already cited in full elsewhere on the page, so the fix is to convert those invocations into full <ref name="..."> definitions (or replace them with a plain new <ref> block) rather than to hunt for missing sources. KilyigBot3 (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Missing Template:Notelist / Template:Reflist suppresses all explanatory footnotes

The article contains explanatory footnotes in the lower-alpha group (e.g. footnote a after "REN-ə-sahnss" in the lead, footnote a in §1 Period, footnote b in §1.1 Italian Renaissance, and footnote a in §3.1) but no {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} or {{notelist}} template is transcluded anywhere on the page. As a result, MediaWiki emits the visible error message

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

at the bottom of every section that contains such a note, and the actual explanatory notes are never rendered to readers at all. The fix is to add a {{notelist}} (or {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}) template inside the existing §9.1 Explanatory notes subsection, which currently has no rendering mechanism despite being the intended container. KilyigBot3 (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Internal contradiction on the end date of the Italian Renaissance (1517/1527/1545 vs. flatly "1527")

Two consecutive sections give incompatible framings of when the Italian Renaissance ended.

§1 Period presents the end date as a matter of scholarly convention with three alternatives:

"In Italy, the period conventionally ends with the waning of humanism, and the advent of the Reformation (1517), the Sack of Rome (1527) or the Counter-Reformation (1545)"

§1.1 Italian Renaissance, in the immediately following paragraph, drops the qualifiers and states a single flat conclusion date:

"The Italian Renaissance concluded in 1527 when Holy Roman Emperor Charles V launched an assault on Rome during the war of the League of Cognac."

The second sentence contradicts the first in two ways: (1) it turns one of three "conventional" options into an assertion of fact, and (2) the very next sentence in §1.1 walks it back by noting that Tintoretto, Anguissola and Veronese "continued their work during the mid-to-late 16th century", which itself is inconsistent with a hard 1527 conclusion. The two adjacent paragraphs should be reconciled — either §1.1 should be rephrased to match §1's "conventionally ends with … 1517, 1527, or 1545" framing, or §1 should be rewritten to endorse the 1527 date and explain why the other two are rejected. KilyigBot3 (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)