 | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that has been
merged and now targets the page: • Fantastic art Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Fantastic art Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
Does anybody understand what this section is about? Except the first three sentences, the rest has nothing to do with the fantasy art. I think the middle part of the article has to be removed or cleaned up severely.–
Aliciawoo
23:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
GOOD POINT!!– 74.102.208.209 15:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
If you check my edits list you'll see how many pages/links just 2 of the more aggressive artists are linking in Wikipedia. In 1 month, 2 artists have added links on 30 pages each!... with multiple links on each page. This is becoming very time consuming. Protector777 Dec.24
GOOD IDEA! -
74.102.208.209
15:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I do agree that the external link section does not reflect the needs of this article.
The epilogue site is about fantasy, but not exactly “art”
The drakionis is in Italian
The artpromote is a link farm.
Etc.
I think the external link section has to be removed for good, due to a constant disagreement between contributors about who spamer is and who is not.–
Aliciawoo
23:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
In the external links section the first link is to epilogue.net and the last link is to mastersoffantasy.com which is owned by epilogue.net. I am not sure if there needs to be a link to both of their sites since mastersoffantasy.com is accessible through epilogue.net. (By the way I think the new edits on this page look really good!)
GumTree
02:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea to replace all fantasy artists links with one that points to the wiki’s fantasy artists category!!-- 74.102.208.209 17:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
A lot of the links in the Artist list are external... don't they belong in the external links section? -Jeff
Looks like there might be too many artist links now. Maybe all of the external links should be changed to internal links, if the artists are important at least some of them should have their own pages here.
Then maybe all of the individual Fantasy Artists links should be moved to the Fantasy Artists section (some of them are allready there) since that place was made especially for them. That way there can be one link that goes to all of the Fantasy Artists, instead of one big long list of internal and external links. GumTree 23:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This article begins by making a distinction between 'fantasy art' and 'science fiction art'. But the famous Frank Collection, which bills itself as a collection of 'fantasy art,' contains much science fiction art. If science fiction illustrations are not 'fantasy art', how is it that these two prominent collectors and authors, Jane and Howard Frank, don't seem to know this? MdArtLover 20:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
This question hinges on semantic definitions. To some, "Fantasy" has only a narrow definition involving heroes, elves, unicorns, etc. To others it is a broad term of which "science fiction" is a subset. (Others extend the definition further, even including such genres as westerns and romance--note that these all usually have realistically painted covers, at least in recent decades). The real answer, the encyclopedic answer, is of course that "fantasy" is a multi-definition word. In order to get into the question of what constitutes fantasy art, this whole explanation would have to be included.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.190.54 ( talk) 22:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Should be merged into Fantastic art, which is better referenced. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 18:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. - Phoenixrod ( talk) 01:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
|
| This is the
talk page of a
redirect that has been
merged and now targets the page: • Fantastic art Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Fantastic art Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
Does anybody understand what this section is about? Except the first three sentences, the rest has nothing to do with the fantasy art. I think the middle part of the article has to be removed or cleaned up severely.–
Aliciawoo
23:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
GOOD POINT!!– 74.102.208.209 15:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
If you check my edits list you'll see how many pages/links just 2 of the more aggressive artists are linking in Wikipedia. In 1 month, 2 artists have added links on 30 pages each!... with multiple links on each page. This is becoming very time consuming. Protector777 Dec.24
GOOD IDEA! -
74.102.208.209
15:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I do agree that the external link section does not reflect the needs of this article.
The epilogue site is about fantasy, but not exactly “art”
The drakionis is in Italian
The artpromote is a link farm.
Etc.
I think the external link section has to be removed for good, due to a constant disagreement between contributors about who spamer is and who is not.–
Aliciawoo
23:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
In the external links section the first link is to epilogue.net and the last link is to mastersoffantasy.com which is owned by epilogue.net. I am not sure if there needs to be a link to both of their sites since mastersoffantasy.com is accessible through epilogue.net. (By the way I think the new edits on this page look really good!)
GumTree
02:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea to replace all fantasy artists links with one that points to the wiki’s fantasy artists category!!-- 74.102.208.209 17:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
A lot of the links in the Artist list are external... don't they belong in the external links section? -Jeff
Looks like there might be too many artist links now. Maybe all of the external links should be changed to internal links, if the artists are important at least some of them should have their own pages here.
Then maybe all of the individual Fantasy Artists links should be moved to the Fantasy Artists section (some of them are allready there) since that place was made especially for them. That way there can be one link that goes to all of the Fantasy Artists, instead of one big long list of internal and external links. GumTree 23:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This article begins by making a distinction between 'fantasy art' and 'science fiction art'. But the famous Frank Collection, which bills itself as a collection of 'fantasy art,' contains much science fiction art. If science fiction illustrations are not 'fantasy art', how is it that these two prominent collectors and authors, Jane and Howard Frank, don't seem to know this? MdArtLover 20:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
This question hinges on semantic definitions. To some, "Fantasy" has only a narrow definition involving heroes, elves, unicorns, etc. To others it is a broad term of which "science fiction" is a subset. (Others extend the definition further, even including such genres as westerns and romance--note that these all usually have realistically painted covers, at least in recent decades). The real answer, the encyclopedic answer, is of course that "fantasy" is a multi-definition word. In order to get into the question of what constitutes fantasy art, this whole explanation would have to be included.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.190.54 ( talk) 22:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Should be merged into Fantastic art, which is better referenced. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 18:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. - Phoenixrod ( talk) 01:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)