Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/History of art

History of art

 * Nominated on 06:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC); needs 21 votes by 12 March.

Small bland stub. Compare to History of sculpture or history of science.

Support:
 * 1) 0918 BRIAN  &bull; 2006-01-22 06:18
 * 2) Avala 16:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Urthogie 21:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Silence 10:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Gflores Talk 00:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Doug 14:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 21:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Fresh 00:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) What a topic! This deserves a good featured article as an overview, with many, many links to more detailed subtopics. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Avala 21:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 11)  S iva1979 Talk to me  14:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) ! Neutralitytalk 07:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Juppiter 21:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) EncycloPetey 08:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Darwinek 21:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Ham 21:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) King of Hearts | (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) gren グレン ? 08:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Batmanand | Talk 14:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * 1) I'd consider replacing this nomation with History of art itself, honestly. :) -Silence 06:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) *Alright. One at a time. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-01-22 06:23
 * 3) I don't understand the comment "compare to history of sculpture"; the history of sculpture is surely a sub-page of the general "history of art" page, so the two can't accurately be compared, as they don't have the same scope. If your point was to show that history of art's sub-pages are in much better shape (though often not in great shape themselves) than "history of art" itself, then that's very true. But if you're looking for an equivalent page, or a model to base ourselves off of, check out history of science. -Silence 10:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) *That comment is just a left-over from when I was nominating History of painting. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-01-24 16:56
 * 5) **Oh. Whoops, sorry. I guess I didn't see it at the time! -Silence 20:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) ***Oops. I was going to add, then I saw your comment, and switched to History of art, but still added the sculpture comparison anyways. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-01-24 20:42
 * 7) Did anyone else notice that the art history link at the bottom of the page is a link to a redirect that returns to the history of art page? In other words, while the article on the history of art is bad, there is no article at all on the study of art history! --EncycloPetey 09:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) *This article should be on the study of art history, not a summary of the history of art - keep that for the articles Western art history, Eastern art history etc. Ham 22:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) **Shouldn't it be both an analysis of the study of art history and a (very brief) summary of that history itself? Surely Western art history and Eastern art history should both have an article that fuses the two traditions and summarizes them both as a single, rather than double, history, even more heavily summarized than those two are; there isn't an absolute or definite enough division between these "Western" and "Eastern" for not having a parent-article to be merited, and in a lot of ways the "Western"/"Eastern" dichotomy is exaggerated and over-emphasized in modern history. It's a useful device for categorizing information, but certainly not an absolute one. We need a general article on both the history of art itself, and the study of the history of art, which can each be covered in the scope of this article at least for now (if this article becomes expanded enough, it may eventually be acceptable to split it into two, but for now that wouldn't be beneficial to either topic). -Silence 22:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) **No, this article should be on the history of art, not on the study of art history. That makes no sense. Of course there are subtopics (Western art history, Eastern art history), but there needs to be one summary article. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-02-13 23:01