A fact from Royal entry appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 October 2007. The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that many of the most famous Italian Renaissance artists were enlisted to provide temporary decorations for flattering allegories of a Royal Entry (example pictured)? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Did you know archive/2007/October.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 Middle Ages Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. European history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oppose This has been discussed before & I think the Flemish material is too specific. The merge proposal has not been set up correctly - for one thing it is now 2013. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The year was easily fixed; were there other problems? Oreo Priest ^talk 19:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Seems like most of the prose on the Joyous Entry page is the same subject as what's here. I think it's important to be information preserving though, so a list of Royal Entries might need to be set up. Also, references to the Joyous Entry of 1356 and the corresponding charter should be no less prominent than they are on the Joyous Entry page. Oreo Priest ^talk 19:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, exactly, there's the problem - that would probably give WP:UNDUE weight in a combined article. Johnbod (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should clarify that if 'Joyous Entry' is a disambig page between a) royal entry b) the 1356 charter and c) the list, then I don't really see how any undue weight would be given. Oreo Priest ^talk 17:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How would that work if you are merging them? I don't see the need for a list myself. Altogether there would be hundreds of them. Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, would you advocate removing the existing list of Joyous entries from that page? Oreo Priest ^talk 18:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No - it's almost a list article already, with just a brief introduction. I'm still not seeing what the problem with the current arrangement is. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now unclear what exactly the proposal, or problem it is supposed to fix, is. Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closed after 8 months. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, fair enough. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the statement about the acceptance of nudity in the entries. While nudity may have occurred in the entry of Charles the Bold into Lille, that unique instance is not enough to assert that there was a "surprising amount" of public nudity of both sexes. As for Wilenski's source, it is a 18th-century copy of a lost 15th-century original^[1]. That source also reports that the three women in the roles of the three graces were the three "ugliest" women in town--in other words, it was a rare instance of farce in an otherwise austere iconographic tradition. Even if this event happened as recorded in the surviving third-hand document, it certainly does not constitute the norm that the public had grown accustomed to. Wawaca (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]