Talk:Imperial Academy of Arts

[Untitled]

I believe this page should be moved to Russian Academy of Arts to reflect the current name. Just my two cents. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 16:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Museum of Taras Shevchenko at the Imperial Academy of Arts

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.109.157.75 (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Why delete photos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.109.157.75 (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Merger with 'Russian Academy of Arts'

Facade of the Russian Academy of Arts in Moscow, marked as "Imperial Academy"

Support. This obviously needs to be merged with Russian Academy of Arts. Y-barton (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Nonsense. ru:Императорская Академия художеств and ru:Российская академия художеств are completely separate institutions. The only modern entity claiming continuity with the Imperial Academy is the Repin Institute of Art in St. Petersburg. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Support. Disagree with Ghirla, the official page of the Russian Academy of Arts makes its origin very clear. The Repin Institute may be housed in the old Imperial Academy building but that does not give it any exclusive claim. In fact, the facade of the "new" Russian Academy of Arts headquarters in Moscow (to your right) says "Imperial Academy...", while still containing Soviet insignia, both of which are a testament to the Institution's historical affiliations and its predecessors. The page should be renamed the Russian Academy of Arts, and should also cover a period spanning from the Imperial Academy to the Soviet Academy of Arts. The intro will contain more information on when it was known under what name. --Damianmx (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. A merger will only compound the current confusion. What is needed are two separate articles, re-edited and correctly named for for clarity and accuracy, and with proper redirects established. It's clear that the articles shouldn't be merged when people can't even agree on the institutional affiliation of the two entities (just one of the many factual clarifications needed here, first, before article deletions/mergers/etc. come into play). For example: Buried at the end of the first paragraph of the Imperial Academy (huh???) article is this sentence: "Since 1991 [!!!] it has been called the St. Petersburg Institute for Painting, Sculpture and Architecture". Folks, IMHO, if this is what it has actually been named *since 1991*, then this is what the article should be named, since if nothing else it will clarify the entity the article is referring to. Official names can serve a purpose in an encyclopedia. If there are former or allegedly universally popular names for the institution then Wikipedia has a system for dealing with this: Put them up front somewhere in the article, bolded, and establish proper redirects. As for the article currently titled "Russian Academy of Arts," it reads like a bad translation and is all but worthless as is. There is a need for an article on whatever-this-is (is it some kind of administrative entity? can't tell for sure) but it will have to be an article greatly revised into something approximating English. Oh and as undoubtedly knotty as it is, the history, chronology, and official connections (past and present) of both the sanktpeterleningradburg and Moscow institutions will have to be properly delineated so that a reader can leave understanding these histories, rather than asking more questions. As for the "correct" names: Again, I propose that official names be used, even if "everybody" knows that "everybody" calls them by something else. Oh and BTW we'd hate to see a presumed argument over naming conventions that is actually a covert political argument over the legitimacy of the Soviet era, the Putin era, or whatever, right? Or a covert battle of the Piter-Moscow rivalry? Not sayin' any of that is happening here, but just sayin'... Doprendek (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)