This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nudity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
nudity and
naturism 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.NudityWikipedia:WikiProject NudityTemplate:WikiProject Nuditynudity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
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 articles
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)reply
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)reply
@
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nudity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
nudity and
naturism 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.NudityWikipedia:WikiProject NudityTemplate:WikiProject Nuditynudity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
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 articles
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)reply
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)reply
@
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply