Talk:La maja desnuda

Question
Anyone know exactly what a "maja" is? The article should include a definition. Postdlf 23:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC) a maja is a noble woman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.64.85.1 (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the definition of "majo" or "maja" should definitely be included. As it was before, it made it look as if "Maja" was a name or something. Anyway, I've included a hyperlink which will clarify things, I hope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.250.201.220 (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Inquisition
Was Goya expecting the Spanish Inquisition?

Capitals?
Surely we should follow the normal capitalizations of each language, as the Opera Wikiproject do? La maja desnuda but "The Nude Maja"? This seems much the commonest, though I also see "naked" beats "nude" 2:1 with the classier authors too - Robert Hughes etc. Mind you, some are for the well-known (what??) movie with Ava Gardner: The Naked Maja. Johnbod (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem with that. I only lowercased them as we had The Naked maja which combined the worst of both worlds. Naked/nude are interchangeable as a translation for desnudo (I prefer "naked" here myself). Yomangani talk 12:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate Reproduction
I have restored the featured version of this painting as it was previously changed here without any explanation. The FP seems to be more in line with the actual colours of the painting and is of equal technical quality. Its companion, La maja vestida, has a featured image and the two are shown side by side in the Francisco Goya article. Cowtowner (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Goyas Majas.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Goyas Majas.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 9, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-08-09. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

maja
Jonbod let's be reasonable. Stop feeling hurt and stop looking at me as a totally incompetent person, please. Let's just discuss this. You removed this sentence: The Spanish name of the picture refers to the maja costume the model is wearing, saying she is not wearing anything. But yes she is wearing this costume in the notsonaked picture, and the name of the picture comes from this. I suppose it is possible to say this somehow, and YES, in the lead because I am telling you this thing is confusing. And I am not your enemy. Hafspajen (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes of course it is possible, as I have now done (mainly by moving up what was already the start of the 2nd section). You are not "totally incompetent", but you are sometimes too careless. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well maybe I am. But is totally tragic because I like You very much, and I think that you do an absolutely wonderful job on Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This Spanish art history calles the picture, La Maja desnuda. With big M. Half of the hits on internet too. La Maja desnuda Eh. Hafspajen (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Following up on the discussion on Hafspajen's talk; what to title a single merged article? Ceoil (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I really don't know anymore. Hafspajen (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Its worth thinking about; you at least opened up this discussion, which is a good thing. I'm in favour of the merge, but not seeing any collective name. The problem is that google might not pick up redirects for the usual titles. Ceoil (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have a good book on this? Hafspajen (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Museo del Prado, Catálogo de las pinturas, p. 138, 1996, Ministerio de Educación y Cultura, Madrid, ISBN 8487317537 uses "La maja desnuda" (& "vestida" for the other). Their English Guide and website use "The Naked Maja" and "The Clothed Maja", but I suspect "Nude" is actually most common in English. Merging would raise a titling issue, though redirects should work fine, but we might well lose google ranking, which prefers straight matches on page titles (without I think worrying about capitalization). One might use eg Goya's naked and clothed maya portraits, but it is a bit clumsy. Or I see the Naked article gets about 15 times more views, so one might be justified in covering both under The Nude Maja or whatever we use. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking more and more that the clothed version should be incorporated in here. Its a pedant, and seems to have been painted solely as a contrast and precurser for the viewer to this work (note how it was early hung over the nude version with a chord that could be pulled to reveal the nude image). I dont think so many people on google are searching for the clothed version, and anyway we will have a redirect. We probably should however page move to The Nude Maja, though I dont really want to. Ceoil (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. I mean, justified covering both under The Nude Maja or whatnot. If nudity attracts, than nude. Hafspajen (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are completly missing the point. Ceoil (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? OK, I say, I just let you decide what to do, I go. Hafspajen (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you might be happer on Facebook. Ceoil (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Ceoil, it is just I am to no use. I feel inhibited and uneasy, it has most probably to do with the Michelangelo thing, where I never succeded to make my point on the talkpage, and I really haven't got a clue what the article should be called, what the picures were named by Goya once upon a time, and I am not an expert on Goya.  Hafspajen (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ok Hafspajen, but you are still being rather passive agressive - eg If nudity attracts, than nude, and there is more, so maybe stop that. If you dont know then why all this bother? Nobody is saying that you are "to no use", please dont think that, I dont, and its not what I was getting at. Just dont leap in as at all. You are more than welcome to talk here otherwise; as I said earlier you raised a very good point about the article title, one that is still unresolved. Thank you for that. Ceoil (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Gosh, no that was a joke. If nudity attracts, than nude Probably I am used to joke to much att the Facebook... Sorry. No it is just that once I tried to make a point on Michelangelos personality, and not managed ...   never mind. We all have our losses .          Hafspajen (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * End of story. No hard feelings. Ceoil (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Difference in colour?
Have to confess never seen the original myself. Which one is the closest? Hafspajen (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The right. Ceoil (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say so too. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

First painting depicting pubic hair?
As far as I know, Renaissance painter Hans Baldung got there first with (1517). Wikitom2 (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)