Talk:Bad girl art

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Saldri3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Restoring images
I have reverted the mass removal of images from the page. All of these images illustrate the characters they depict, and as such fall within the fair use purposes for which they were uploaded. Smerdis of Tlön 22:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Do they? The fair use rationale given on each image says:
 * It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of covers of individual issues of comic books
 * to illustrate:
 * the issue of the comic book in question;
 * the periodical comic book series of which this issue is a part; or
 * the copyrighted comic book character(s) or group(s) on the cover of the issue in question;
 * where no free alternative exists or can be created...
 * It doesn't seem to me that this usage would fall into any of that. It's solely discussing the TYPE of comic it is, not the exact one, and so wouldn't fall into that fair use rationale. I suppose one could argue that there is a fair use rationale for using it here, but they're not on the image's pages. --Rory096 20:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you put another fair use rationale on there, thanks. I do still think that free versions could be created, though; it won't actually show a character people may be familiar with, but it can still show the concept. --Rory096 20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, a free image would just be a piece of fan art. This is about a trend and a visual style in published comics, from a particular period of their history.  I really don't think there's any substitute for using the publishers' images of the characters in question.    Smerdis of Tlön 21:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As none of the writing is cited, i contend that the content has been oringinal researched in order to allow a fair use - removing the OR removes any claim of fair use, hence it is not a valid claim.YobMod 08:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Happily, this is no longer true; the article now has many citations. However, that does not alleviate the need to have a solid fair use rationale for each image. The images should be of characters or works cited in the article as being examples of "bad girl art". The examples should be backed up by references within the article. Preferably, the images should be specifically addressed in the article itself. My personal opinion is that the plethora of images that we currently have is pushing the boundary of fair use. Fortunately, they are not all from the same copyright holders. No one is policing this right now; even Betacommand's bot is not that sophisticated. But we ought to police ourselves. Does anyone feel that there is justification for using for using all five current images, other than the fact that it looks nice? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is sum total of five images. A thoughtful discussion on which should be kept and what aspects of this artform they illustrates makes sense. Simply targeting them does not. This also goes to the issue of article structure. IMHO, an effort should be made to look at restructuring the article and show early and later examples plus if notable artists are involved that may make sense as well. Those familiar with the genre will certainly do a better job than I but i also feel deleting them prematurely is also not helpful. As was pointed out elsewhere with this content it was all sourced to the standards of wikipedia at one point but our standards changed. This is also true with the images. What used to be fine no longer is so if any of the images are removed they are quickly tagged for orphan deletion. Discussion before deletion will likely serve the article and our readers best.  -- Banj e  b oi   23:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely there are free examples of bad girl art? In any case, the only image that risks deletion is the Lady Death image, so let's trim it down to that as an example of the genre and discuss from there. That seems to be the minimal interim path of harm. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Two, possibly three images have since been deleted altogether. Unseen anywhere on Wikipedia at all by anyone. This is exactly the concern raised previously. -- Banj e  b oi   10:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Two images. One of them is about our fifth Vampirella cover image, and isn't necessary at all. The other was our third or fourth Shi cover image, but it's better than the one we have in Shi's article so I rescued it.
 * The idea was that we were going to have fewer images when we were done here. I don't think anyone made any bones about that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly did and I believe others raised similar concerns. I appreciate you trying to rescue the one image but the core issue remains the same. We had several images but instead of finding ways to keep them the effort was to find ways to remove them. Perhaps the article will expand and more images will be a non-issue, we'll see. -- Banj e  b oi   02:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't preserve non-free content for the day when it might be relevant. We'll just have to have confidence that the text will lead and images will follow. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge
As this article has no citations, and it's understanding of bad girl art completely contradicted the article on Good girl art, i have stubbified it. I think it is just a type of good girl art, and should be merged there. The target already mentions it, with one source, so has more cited info than here, so merging just needs redirecting (which i did, but was undone). Note there are 2 editors above saying the same thing.YobMod 08:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note there is also an editor above saying the opposite. I'm the editor that undid your undiscussed redirect, and I agree with the other editor. Oppose merge Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose why? Have you even read the articles - this article is completely OR and often simply wrong. Noe of the opposes have tackled the problem that this is made up. In fact no-one else has opposed it, one user simply said it needs sources. In a week or so, i would remove the rest of the uncited content, which leaves zero sentences!Yob<b style="color:#008000;">Mod</b> 19:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's part of your problem, I have rolled back all of your recent changes meant to gut the article-there's a difference between the trim you claimed and the actual gutting you performed. You don't remove material that's only been fact-tagged for two days. You are trying to do by other means what your redirect did not do, and it's a violation of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Fact tag if you must, but leave them up long enough for editors to actually cite them. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Check the Robbins book. "Bad girl art" tends not to be a used as a mirror image of "good girl art".  While "good girl art" generally describes the quality of the art, rather than the character of the characters, and you can have "good girl art" of femme fatales and other "bad girls", "bad girl art" originally describes a sexualized and manneristic depiction of "bad girls": female characters representing the grim and gritty mood of comics of the mid-1990s.
 * Now, it does get rather silly and tiresome when an article written in 2005, and quite adequately referenced according to the standards then accepted, gets labelled as "original research" by people who neither assume good faith that the sources cited back up the article's claims, or bother to check them out themselves. I mean to do a little untagging. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I also oppose merging these two terms. I'm coming a little late to the discussion, but it appears that Smerdis of Tlön has resolved the problem of the lack of reliable references. Nice work, Smerdis! So we now have a definition, complete with a reliable source. I don't own the book, but a quick check on Amazon's "Look Inside the Book" shows that the book does indeed have both "good girl art" and "bad girl art" listed on the index page. So, I think that it's fair to say that the concept in general is not original research.

Defining genres is tricky business. If you don't believe me, look at any rock band article on Wikipedia. The edit wars over how to define Guns 'N Roses are enough to drive one insane. But it seems clear to me that a major distinction between these two artistic trends—I hesitate to say "movements"—is time. Good Girl Art is something which took place three decades prior to Bad Girl Art. And it appears that the former influenced the name of the latter (although it would be nice to have a ref for that). Also, the object of the adjective is not the same: "good" modifies "art" whereas "bad" modifies "girl". Note that this isn't my ad hoc definition - this comes from the source listed in the article. One could argue that both genres are really just the same thing, but that would be original research. Someone else may have made that argument in a reliable source, however, in which case it would be reasonable item to include in the article.

But, since the article is being fleshed out nicely—That's a bad pun, isn't it? Sorry.—I'm glad that this agitation occurred. The article is much improved. And due to that improvement, the definition of Bad Girl Art as something distinct from Good Girl Art is now elucidated. As such, I am in favor of keep the two articles separate. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

not all sexy females are bad girls though
Does Tomb Raider, as she is referred to on the current list(instead of Lara Croft), or Danger Girl, count as bad girls? That is a case of good girl art from the pictures I've seen. Do either have blood on them, ripped clothing, or overly sexual poses? Their clothing isn't that revealing at all. I clicked on the link to Danger Girl, and didn't see anything in the pictures there, that would qualify under the bad girl definition.  D r e a m Focus  22:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's really not up to us to decide. This is the problem I have with musical genres, as I mentioned above. On Wikipedia, Lara Croft and Danger Girl (or any other character or work) should only be referred to as "bad girl art" if a) the creators have called them such or b) news coverage or criticism has referred to them as such. That is to say, we need to have reliable sources for these kinds of definitions, otherwise it's just our opinions and that's original research. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That list should be removed as it is clearly a magnet for original research. The key examples should be mentioned in the text with sources.
 * More sources: books and scholar. If anyone needs any source they can' easily get their hands on then ask at WT:CMC and we'll see what we can do. (Emperor (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

How many images are we allowed?
The policy referenced by the tag doesn't provide much by way of specifics. Obviously, this article is incomplete without illustrations; and given the time referenced, any illustration will be under copyright. I removed the Shi image and replaced it with an image of Purgatori from her article, because it seemed closer to the core definition. I cut the images down to three, and left the two that seemed most easily to relate to the theme, and expanded the text in their captions a bit. Unless the re-tagger has a problem, I'd get rid of that tag also. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag. To be honest, more than one image wouldn't be a problem, as long as it was explained in the task how that particular image was notable, historic or important in the genre. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 10:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What's allowed is the minimum needed to understand the topic. The rule of thumb I use is "Don't use many when few suffice, don't use few when one suffices, don't use one when none suffices." For now, Angela's and Purgatori's images are in other articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "For now?" You seem to think they shouldn't be.  I frankly don't see how your interpretation follows necessarily from the actual policy, and the guideline speaks of "images illustrative of a particular technique or school", suggesting the possibility of using more than one. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We're now down to three images to illustrate an artform. I find that perfectly acceptable. One is clearly too few and simply sets up a situation for folk to battle over which one, etc. Editors more knowledgable than I about the subject can sort out what images work best but cutting all or most away seems a bit aggressive and frankly doesn't seem to be helping the article. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   18:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Smerdis, I don't think A Man In Bl♟ck is suggesting that those images should be removed from the other articles. I think what he's implying is that if they happen to be removed from this article, they won't be orphaned and deleted unless someone chooses to remove them from the other articles. Thus, we can debate and change our minds without fear of losing them right away. At least that's how I interpreted it. Having had fair use images which I uploaded get orphaned and deleted during periods of inactivity, I'd probably phrase it the same way.


 * Benjiboi, I haven't exhaustively searched through the edit history, but I don't think anyone did a blanket removal of all of the images recently. As far as I know, the only time that happened was back in 2006. Feel free to prove me wrong, though. ;-)


 * As for how many images to use, I think we have leeway. I think Smerdis made some good choices in both image selection and fair use justification. Really, I think we could use all five images (or more) if they can be shown to authoritatively illustrate a point or are specifically referenced in the text of the article, especially if that text is cited to a reliable source. I just think it's important to demonstrate that fair use, rather than merely making a gallery (a problem I once ran across on Iron Fist). --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yesterday there was four, today there was one. I reverted to add two back. Add the idea that they will sit on another article sounds fine until they are removed from there as well. If I hadn't seen perfectly suitable images deleted many times I wouldn't think too much of it either. Hopefully the current state is a reasonable compromise. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   21:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Right now, these images don't illustrate specific points made in the article. One is being used to illustrate a list with no explanation why anything is on that list! By "for now", I meant that we can leave the images out unless and until they can illustrate specific points made in the text. Right now, the Lady Death image is the only one doing that (with Pulido and Chaos! getting some specific mention), and one image (which would be deleted if it were orphaned) is fine for illustrating the style in general. Cutting down images aggressively is necessary and encouraged, and images shouldn't be replaced until they can be specifically justified by people who are knowledgeable about the topic.
 * And no, I'm not going to remove the infobox images from Angela (comics) or Purgatori. Why would I do that? :S - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for proving my point to GentlemanGhost. There is no reason to delete these images here and reasonable attempts have been made to start addressing the concerns so now it simply feels like you're removing them because you don't liek them which is a terrible idea. Visual art genres are rarely expresses adequately without actualy showing them and there is absolutely no indication you are an expert in this fiend and have determined that the only remaining images adequately represents the entire genre better than all the other images. Comparing the various images on the same article also makes sense so I find the basis that gee, they are somewhere else rather ... baseless. Instead of fostering a constructive dialog you have continued to edit war to get your way. Not very productive for helping improve an article. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   00:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Understand that there is no reason to keep these images here, and that they need to be specifically justified or removed. I'm largely with GG on the potential of this article, but non-free content is a reversal of the usual in that we don't and can't and shouldn't keep it around based on potential. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * When I selected those particular images, choosing three, and removing the rest of them, I made sure to add captions that showed exactly how each image related to the text of the article. Purgatori was added to illustrate the text's descriptions of costume and character design.  Lady Death the best known and most iconic character in the genre, and her back story is particularly relevant.  The drawing of Angela illustrated the busy style and anatomical exaggerations characteristic of this kind of art.  I made sure that each of the captions represented some aspect of the style discussed in the article in chief.  I thought I did a reasonable job of explaining why they were relevant to this article; but it appears I was wasting my time.  You seem to be an army of one on this particular issue.  I have no real desire to edit war with you over this, but I see your zeal as somewhat misdirected here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Purgotori is redundant with Lady Death here. Lady Death is certainly more iconic (of the genre, of Pulido, of Chaos!) and illustrates essentially the same concepts discussed in the Purgatori caption. Both captions discuss juxtaposition of sexualized characters and horror iconography (which is evident in both pictures, arguably better so in the Lady Death image because the headlining character is in the fore), both are made by the same artist for the same publisher. This is really a don't-use-two-when-one-suffices issue.
 * As for the Angela image, I think it has some potential at a later date when this article goes into greater detail about how the Image house style influenced this genre, but right now the Angela image would primarily illustrate this:
 * Their artistic illustrations are closely linked with the highly manneristic and finely inked style of art that is associated with the original "Image Comics" house style. Most such characters are scantily clad. Most of these heroines are very busty and with elongated legs that are often thicker than their waists. These characters frequently wield a large gun or sword, and wear skulls or mystic symbols in their clothing.
 * I think an image of a busty, long-legged, wasp-wasted, scantily-clad woman with a skull-emblazoned bikini and a longsword illustrates that effectively, even if the image happens to be by Pulido instead of Turner. If we had something about how fine inking and busy character design were common to or influential on the genre, or how Turner were influential, or something specific to this picture, but as of right now the association seems to be more with Image's general anatomic exaggeration than on other elements of their style. (More of Liefeld's impossible spines than his POUCHES POUCHES POUCHES, if you'd like.)
 * Like I said before, there does exist some potential to use at least some of these images in later versions of this article but specific justification of what multiple images do that one image does not is necessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(sigh) If you will allow only one image for the time being, I suppose I would prefer the Angela image. Lady Death is the more widely recognized character, but the Angela image is the most florid version of the style at issue, displays an even more improbable posture, and therefore the best image to illustrate, "what does That Sort of Thing look like?" (Who drew that? It looked like it bore both Turner and McFarlane's signatures, although they are all hard to make out.)  Compared to the Angela image, Lady Death is nicely composed and uncluttered. Since the guideline explicitly allows more than one image, and the three I selected all illustrate different aspects of the phenomenon, I still do not understand your intransigence. I suppose I could try and draw something in the style myself. I am an amateur pinup artist, although I try to pay fairly close attention to anatomy and prefer clean lines in my own art, largely to avoid the flaws of this sort of material. But any image I were to produce myself would likely start another quarrel about "original research". - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just axing the extra images while we discussed it, that's all. I'm not saying that WE CANNOT HAVE MORE THAN ONE IMAGE, just that we need to err on the side of fewer images while we discuss them further. If I were going to walk a hard line, the possibility of free images (and thus having no non-free images) seems like a better place to do it, but I just don't see how we can talk about commercial art with free approximations of commercial art.
 * Anyhoo. I guess I'm unclear on what in this article the Angela image illustrates that the Lady Death image doesn't other than (flaws of) the Image house style, which aren't discussed here in detail. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have any objection to the Angela image being used to illustrate the section Smerdis just added. I think we might do better with a different Lady Death image, though, one that better illustrates the second para in #Bad Girl characters. I'll keep an eye out. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually managed to find a reliable source that discussed the Image house style in a fair amount of detail - from the Connecticut Historical society, no less. I used that to expand the section a bit, separated the character and visual style sections, and added the Angela image back. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw it, and it was good work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * D'y think we can lose the "totally disputed" tag at this point? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Does it speak to how invisible those tags have become that my immediate reaction was "What tag?" - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

POV
This article has too few references and reads like an essay. Personal opinions are everywhere. Added template. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Additions to this page
Hello, I am a student at Louisiana State University in a Women's Gender Studies class, and I would like to go more in depth into the storyline behind the characters mentioned, the inspiration from the artists to make these characters, background information on the authors and illustrators involved in making these characters come to life, and what each of the characters represent in the Bad Girl Art movement. Saldri3 (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Media and Gender
— Assignment last updated by Nothinbutsierra (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)