Talk:Nude (art)

Merge discussion

I have tagged Figure painting to be merged into this article.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Not convinced. Not all figure painting is of nudes (not even the majority of it). Not all depictions of the nude in art is 2D painting, the majority maybe but figurative sculptures are a very substantial minority. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to move this to the right page, per above (not a very well set up proposal though). No more here please! Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

This may be the "right" page per "merge into" conventions, but it made no sense to me having a discussion that would turn an article into a redirect anywhere other that on that article's talk page.

Yes, figure paintings are not all nudes, but the article content is almost entirely about nudes. The general category of paintings that include the human figure is instead covered by many other categories, such as history painting and portrait painting, leaving only nudes in the general category. Perhaps Figure painting should be a disambiguation page.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Another sub-category: Genre painting.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Human figure is a redirect to Nude (art), which indicates to me that "figure" is a euphemism for "nude" for the mythical average person WP is supposed to address. This discrepancy is also reflected in the common usage of "figurative" art to also mean nudes, not the opposite of "literal" which may be the dictionary definition.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Where is this discussion taking place now? I'm confused! Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

WriterArtistDC What tf are you doing??. Having set this up i9mproperly, by not reading the instructions properly, you have now removed the link you set up yourself, leaving comments stranded over there. WP:COMPETENCE. Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I did read the "instructions" but disagreed as I say above. You did the "move" but I thought that cleanup was needed so I changed the link in the header on the Figure painting page so any new participants would be redirected here. Yes, it leaves the original discussion orphaned; perhaps it should have been deleted or revised.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

A reminder: Wikipedia:No personal attacks--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Given the above, questioning your competence is hardly a PA. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:CIRNOT:"Calling someone incompetent is a personal attack and is not helpful. Always refer to the contributions and not the contributor, and find ways to phrase things that do not put people on the defensive or attack their character or person."--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments at the otyher place. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Closing - I intended the initial comment at the top of this section to be an advertisement for a discussion on Talk:Figure_painting#Merge_into. This was my mistake, there should have been clearer language and a wikilink. After the initial confusion, I went back to the "Merge to" template documentation, and finding that the default location for the discussion is the destination talk page (here), I changed the link in the header template on the other page to point here, which apparently only made things worse. I have spent much of my 15 years on WP adding content, and think of myself as a researcher, not a wikipedian, having no interest in building an encyclopedia. The topics of interest to me attract little attention, but have always welcomed discussion as part to the editorial process, and agree with the guidelines for conduct such as wp:assume good faith. There is little to be said to anyone who assumes otherwise, but considers any error to be an opportunity to insult another contributor, and apparently thinks they need only assert their own authority when making edits, not seek consensus. Regarding closing this merge discussion, can/should all comments be moved to one place before boxing them up? Which page?--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of History of nude art into Nude (art)

Target already has extensive history section. Much of content is duplicate. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose The impressive size of History of nude art and the number of sources suggests a separate article is warranted. Most of the content is clearly not copied from the main article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Should the current section on history be shortened, the rest merged into the other article, and a hat note added to direct readers interested in more to go to the other article? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't have a large history section here, as well as a separate article with more detail. We do that for most countries. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. History of nude art is yet another poor translation of a poor article from the Spanish Wikipedia just plonked onto en:wp. I wish I knew who was organizing this. Each one has a new new editor. Sorting it out would be a major job. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually this is the same guy who translated the very low-quality Sculpture in the Renaissance period. This new one is 338,167 raw bytes, which is just too long. Neither of them are very high quality, but Nude (art) is better. The original Spanish text is quite good (much better than the sculpture one), & the refs ok (but all in Spanish), but the English phrasing, linking & so forth is poor. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per reasons already given. Indeed there is a case to delete the new article as a redundant WP:FORK. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

There's too much extra in the History one to do that, I think, but it does work as a subsidiary article. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I wonder if a better (or at least more conventional) title might be History of the nude in art or History of nudity in art? The term "Nude art" seems a strange construction to me. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes - the English idiom throughout is shaky. I'd prefer the former. But let's leave that for now. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I hate to be picky so soon after my last proposed name change (to History of the nude in art) was accepted but, looking at the article again, would it not be more honest to call it History of the nude in Western art? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Tucked away at the bottom there are actually sections on India (long, quite good), Japan and Africa. And Egypt & the Ancient Near East are covered. Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Going nowhere! I will close this now. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Appropriateness of the Term Issues

Wikipedia shoudl take a neutral stance, and a consensus has already been made on the section being named criticism instead of "issues" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.241.155.164 (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

??Criticism seems less neutral than issues to me. Johnbod (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)