Talk:Art in the Protestant Reformation and Counter-Reformation

Marcia Hall

to use Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to introduce it. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 06:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 5 January 2016

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. There is a clear consensus to rename the page, and a sound policy basis in title consistency. The proposed amendment is also more in keeping with our titling scheme (see, e.g., Art of the Crusades, Art of the Upper Paleolithic). bd2412 T 05:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Reformation and art → Protestant Reformation and art – In order to distinguish from reformation of/in art in general. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: Proposal now modified, see below. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose What "reformation of/in art in general"? The subject is clear, though somewhat less so following the nominator's undiscussed and frankly stupid move of the article from The Reformation and art to Reformation and art. This is some combination of sharp practice and poor understanding of English, I can't work out what. The article also deals with the Counter-Reformation, so alternative titles would need to reflect this somehow. This editor has a history of ill-thought-out undiscussed moves, so I am glad to see he is at least beginning to use the proper procedure, at least sometimes. It should go back to The Reformation and art or maybe Art in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Ideally the nominator should be banned from any undiscussed moves. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Since when does Wikipedia include "the" in article names about generic subjects? Chicbyaccident (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

"The Reformation" is specific - it was you who removed the "the". Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. But why would you wish to have an exception to the article name rule of excluding "the" in this article? Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Please, no more undiscussed moves, but wait till this discussion has come to its result. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Returning - if moved at all it should be to Art in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, but I think the present title is fine. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Rename WP:CONSISTENCY the article is called Protestant Reformation. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This is a descriptive title, might as well be clear about it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

To both: If you support the proposed new name, please explain why you think the rather larger part of the article devoted to the Catholic Counter-Reformation should not be mentioned in the title. Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Neither title mentions the Counter-Reformation. "The Reformation" is the Protestant one. But there's no reason Counter-Reformation art can't be covered by either title.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course, you haven't actually looked at the article which, I repeat, gives more space to the Catholic Counter-Reformation. To say you haven't answered my question is an understatement. In the circumstances the proposed title is very POV; I've suggested an alternative above. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. As I said, neither the current title nor proposed one mentions the Counter-Reformation, there's no reason the Counter-Reformation can't be covered in an article on the Reformation and art. Your proposed title is a possibility but it's very long.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

In the interest of hopefully moving this along, I'll support the second proposal of Art in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Move. I support some sort of rename as the current title is contrary to WP:THE and at first glance the original proposal seems fine. However, Johnbod (who appears to have some expertise in the topic area and has written the bulk of the article) has expressed some reasonable concerns with that proposal, so I am happy so support his alternative of Art in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Jenks24 (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Being the proposer of the above move, after the arguments, I too agree with that modified proposal. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! It would be helpful if, as nominator, you could modify the proposal at the top, as many people seem not to be reading all the discussion (or the article). Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support, consistency with its parent article, Protestant Reformation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: Proposal modified at this point. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Modified proposal

• "Art in the Protestant Reformation and the Counter-Reformation", by inspiration of Johnbod above. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Art in the Protestant Reformation. Reads better. " and the Counter-Reformation" is wordy and unnecessary. Art of the Catholic Counter-Reformation would have a place under the shorter title. "Counter" begs: counter to what? Catholic Counter-Reformation art existed simply to reflect Art in the Protestant Reformation, then it is much the same subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I've rarely heard so much nonsense in one of these discussions, and that's saying a lot. Have you tried actually reading the article? Johnbod (talk) 06:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the article, but I don't know what you think I misunderstand. Currently, the section The_Reformation_and_art#Art_and_the_Counter-Reformation sits in the article without needing to be referenced in the title. What is different? Is it that "The Reformation" embodies the the Protestant Reformation and the Counter-Revolution? I wouldn't have thought so. Anyway, you are very correct in that I am an amateur on this subject. If you don't like my suggestion that Art in the Protestant Reformation is suitable, then I am happy to support Art in the Protestant Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose any move from the current title ("The Reformation and art"). I can accurately guess what the article is about from the title, and I'm neither a historian nor an artist. Srnec (talk) 17:31, 30 January 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead section

The lead section - especially the initial sentence - could use some improvements, right? Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 14:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Wrong, probably, like most of your comments. You not going to say it is POV I hope? Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry? For the record, I was referring to grammatics and wikifying. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 17:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the grammar. Grammatics? No. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

How were Calvin is church is decorated

How are Calvinists churches decorated 2600:8801:AB03:DA00:CC38:66B5:4CA8:FAEC (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

very little, if at all. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)