Talk:Catholic art

Themes

This page has a list of "major themes", but does not mention Immaculate Conception as a theme, although there is a category Immaculata in Wiki Commons. So, as far as topics go, where do these famous paintings go in Wikipedia?

Is this a missing theme from the list? Your comments will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There probably is more than one. the list is not exhaustive. Hopefully someone will create an Immaculate Conception in Art page to link to. Xandar (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There is now Roman Catholic Marian art, which is surely linked? Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I had not added links for that page yet. I will try to get it out of the witness protection program today. Cheers History2007 (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Celtic Art

This deserves a section in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.143.164 (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Name change

As this article makes reference to Eastern Catholic art and treats both Eastern and Western traditions, it ought to reflect the name of the main article, Catholic Church. I propose a move to Catholic Art or the Catholic Church and Art or Art in the Catholic Church. But, the reference to "Roman" is problematic in the title.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You have made similar proposals for the sudden abolition of the term Roman from several places in Wikipedia. Hold on while the project Catholicism discussion continues. History2007 (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The article has coverage of the influence of Othodox art on Western Catholic art, and a few lines on Eastern Catholic art, which it does not try to cover. None of the proposed titles are attractive. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would not object to Art in the Catholic Church but John is the art expert by far and his opinion should probably be followed. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 30 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closing as no consensus (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Catholic Church art → Catholic art – I'm not sure, but I suppose this is sufficient and sounds as good or better as an article name for due content. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 21:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Ambiguous. The article is about "sacred art", not the other (perfectly viable) subject of secular/all art by Catholics. Perhaps it should be "Catholic church art" though. Johnbod (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

If so, what about "Catholic Church and art", similarly to other articles on paired subjects? Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 05:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide examples to validate a precedence for a title such as "Catholic Church and art"? From what I see, the title "Catholic Church and art" is a title that would have a WP:XY issue as a redirect. That title could make readers believe that the article also contains information regarding the ambiguous subject of Art that is in no way related to "Catholic Church". Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he moved it to that and I moved it to the present title. Vague "and" titles are best avoided, and gradually get changed. We have some "Catholic Church and evolution" ones, but that is very different. This is about art by and for the church, as well as their attitude to art. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Catholic Church art. 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6Mfwe5Lhp?url=http://www.domkerk.nl/domchurch/history.html to http://www.domkerk.nl/domchurch/history.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://danielmitsui.tripod.com/aaaaa/deathart.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512034542/http://www.aug.edu/augusta/iconography/index.html to http://www.aug.edu/augusta/iconography/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 7 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved. See general agreement below to rename to the more concise requested title. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  18:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Catholic Church art → Catholic art – Per WP:CONSISTENCY with Christian art, Religious art, Catholic theology, Catholic ecclesiology, Catholic spirituality, Catholic higher education, Catholic missions, etc. Trying a new move request, since "no consensus" last time a year ago. "Catholic art" seems like a bit more broader scope than "Catholic Church art". Not all Catholic art has been actively associated with the Catholic Church as an institution/organisation. Arguably, "Catholic art" simply makes for a more simple name per WP:CONCISE. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 00:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose catholic is an adjective so "church" is required in this context In ictu oculi (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

  So? Both "Church" and "art" are nouns, so "Catholic" can modify either. No such user (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, I really don't understand this oppose. There is nothing wrong with the title "Catholic art"; there's no grammar problem, that can not be what you mean. Can you elaborate, IIO? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose otherwise we will end up with all art done by Catholics, which isn't the point of the category. Catholic religious art might be an alternative - I support that. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why that scope would be the case? Are you saying the same thing about Christian art or Islamic art? Well, would yet support your proposal as a secondary best option. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

We treat these in fundamentally different ways (as do most sources): "Christian art is sacred art which uses themes and imagery from Christianity ..." but "Islamic art encompasses the visual arts produced from the 7th century onward by people who lived within the territory that was inhabited by or ruled by culturally Islamic populations" - many Muslims deny there is any "Islamic religious art" at all - see talk there. You don't even have to be Muslim to produce Islamic art, and many who did were not. It is a style article, where Christian art is fundamentally not. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I get the distinction there, but I disagree that we'd have the problem you predict. The phrase "Catholic art" means this subject, not "art by people who happen to be Catholic or live in Catholic countries". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:CONCISE. Not a single book uses "Catholic Church art" as a book or chapter title or even as a collocation. Contrast Catholic art. I don't think that there's reasonable danger of scope confusion mentioned by Johnbod, but I could live with Catholic religious art. The current title is borderline nonsense. And please move List of Catholic Church artists along, as practically none of the artists listed there was a member of catholic clergy as strongly implied by the title. No such user (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree, including about said list. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:CONCISE. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for the above reasons. The lead sentence of the article states Catholic art consists of all visual works produced in an attempt to illustrate, supplement and portray in tangible form the teachings of the Catholic Church. Therefore I would propose moving to Art of the Catholic Church. "Catholic art" could suggest it is art by artists who happen to be members of the Catholic Church. Also, without "church", catholic can have a different meaning (i.e. universal/all-encompassing). jamacfarlane (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Catholic religious art is more likely to be hit on in the search box. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Johnbod in that case with these two options (although I still fail to understand how we cannot affirm that Catholic is a religious adjective implicitely, so no further WP:PRECISION should required but rather WP:CONCISE). Now, Art of the Catholic Church would significantly alter the scope in a deviating way. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Will anybody really think Catholic art = all art by people who happen to be Catholic? Rather than art in the Catholic religious and cultural tradition. Including church implies a narrower scope and a concept that isn't so widely referred to. Catholic religious art at least makes sense. —innotata 02:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support Widely used term/concept, no actual confusion. Shouldn't be much question about it. —innotata 02:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support The proposed title is pretty clear in meaning, so benefits from being more concise. I would argue, even, that it is more clear: when I first saw the current title I thought it would be limited to art having to do with actual church buildings, such as the architecture, frescoes in churches, etc. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Catholic religious art per Johnbod and the above discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  Sorry, what is ambiguous about "Catholic", please, that you think it is necessary to specificate that it is "religious" here, as opposed to everywhere else on Wikipedia where "Catholic" implictely means in the religious sense? And how does that exceptionate conclusion on this very article name comply with WP:CONCISE, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• I don't even know why we're changing this. The page Christian art covers all Christian art, including Catholic religious art. Catholic is one form of Christianity, and to differentiate, as this article does, confuses the issue. WP:CONCISE doesn't ask editors to strip away all accurate descriptors. A merge to Christian art may even be an option. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Now, you may know about iconoclasm, Calvinism, and other interpretations of Christian art. Merging Catholic art with Christian art would be another subject. I don't know why you are digressing to this subject when asked about how you draw your conclusion about the exceptionate wording regarding this article name, in opposition to WP:CONCISE. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support per original nomination. Removing the word "Church" doesn't seem to make the title any less WP:PRECISE, and does make it more WP:CONCISE. It also appears to be the term most often used in the literature, satisfying WP:COMMONNAME as well.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional discussion

This is part of a perennial issue, and perhaps needs another centralised discussion. In my view Catholic Church art and catholic church art are significantly different topics. The latter could perhaps be shortened to catholic art except of course our software doesn't distinguish it from Catholic art, which again is a different topic. Andrewa (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This is an example of overdoing it. Unfortunately, you can't backtrack that argument to WP:CONSENSUS on Wikipedia, if taking the adjective Catholic and its redirection into account. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree that Unfortunately, you can't backtrack that argument to WP:CONSENSUS on Wikipedia... exactly. It's a mess, and even the participants should expect to have difficulty sorting out what's POV and COI in their own contributions, self included. See my off-this-wiki essay Roman or Catholic or neither or both for some food for thought, and Wikipedia gets a big mention there.

I believe we can eventually come to a good consensus on these issues, and an NPOV solution. But probably not by chipping away piecemeal. We need to look at the big picture. Andrewa (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Please address the big picture at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church), for instance at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church)#Cuius_regio,_eius_religio. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

While a lot of work went into that proposal, it's currently flagged as a failure. Possibly better to start again and keep it a bit shorter, but happy to have a go at restarting that discussion. Meantime, this RM is problematical. We need to come to a consensus that the proposed guideline failed to get. No wonder we are having trouble.

That failed proposal has an interesting history, recently you are the only contributor except for edits such as this one, and the talk page is similar.

And there is User:Vaquero100/CC vs. RCC, also last edited by yourself a few months ago, but its talk page last edited more than ten years ago as I write, and User:Pseudo-Richard/Names of the Catholic Church, last edited also fairly recently by you, but its talk page not edited since a procedural move in 2010.

And of course Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Terminology which appears to be a discussion page, also last edited by you. Its talk page is just a WikiProject banner.

Are there others? No sense reinventing the wheel.

Agree that there's a need for a centralised discussion. But it should start again from scratch, learning from those attempts, and also from RMs such as this one. Andrewa (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Please try to take the centralised discussion on a centralised location, for convenience. I don't recall creating any of the above pages except the proposal. Arguably, creating yet another article won't change anything for the better. Why don't you restart the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Proposed naming conventions (Catholic_Church)? That's the most logical place of departure for a discussion, isn't it? Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that particular proposal is revivable. The RfC isn't that long ago, and closed as consensus to reject it. As I said above, better to start again, linking to it and others (as I have above) and from them to it, as seems helpful to try to reduce reinventing the wheel.

I've had another look at my essay at User:Andrewa/Roman or catholic and while I don't think it would gain consensus as a guideline as is, I think the points it makes should be considered in any new proposal, and that a new proposal might be helpful. No promises on that! Comments on its talk page welcome of course. Andrewa (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You advocate making yet another subjective userspace personal essay with the argument "no sense reinventing the wheel"? I don't know how many such personal essays has been drafted. That is why I proposed collectively drafting a proposal in the unpersonal, independent Wikipedia space. It's meant as something to build on, so I don't understand why you don't try to argument for changing things on its talk page rather? Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

No I don't. Sticks and stones. Happy to move my draft to the Project Namespace if you think that would help. I understand that you'd prefer to revive your previous attempt, please respect my opinion that this won't work.

But if you do want to continue with that previous proposal, I hope that my thoughts might be of help to you. Start at User talk:Andrewa/Roman or catholic#Some principles is my advice.

And if you can remember any of these other many such personal essays and either link to them or at least suggest a search string that might find them, I'd be interested in learning from them. Andrewa (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Conclusion

The majority supports original proposal. Please let this one be relisted yet another time if even stronger consensus and arguments is required than what is already provided. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is of course for the closer to determine, rather than involved editors. Andrewa (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Certainly. Just saying that if the above majority votes and arguments are not deemed convincing, them a relisting would be more suitable. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

In other words, you're advising anyone who might otherwise close it as no move for whatever reason not to do so. That's completely uncalled for IMO. Andrewa (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, since the last administrator closed it as no consensus when a majority of votes was clear, only to then apologise for the mistake, arguably that could be said to contribute. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

This does explain this section, but appears to be a misinterpretation of that mistake. It can be perfectly valid to close as no consensus when a majority of votes was clear, depending on the arguments advanced in the discussion. I assume (and hope!) that there were other factors in overturning that close rather than just counting heads. Andrewa (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Help with editing

No idea why this mistake cannot be undone. Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Fixed it for you. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It was indeed fixed, thank you, which obsoletes this section so I have removed it. Andrewa (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)