Talk:Asian art

Partial merge to Asian art needed

Asian art was redirected here in c. 2015, after as an afterthought to the renaming of History of Eastern art here. It was not subject to its own merge discussion, and I boldly challenge the mini-consensus of two folks who commented on this at that point. Asian art is a notable parent article, just like African art or European art. The article here, "history of", is a mess - much of the content here is not about "history". A merge/split of some content is needed, if anyone cares. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

History of Asian art may not be great, but it is far better than the glorified disam page that was Asian art, currently re-redirected here. A "mini-consensus of two folks" is better than the opinion of one editor (not a regular in this field). Which bits do you think are "not about "history""? Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

As I said, you can take this to AFD. I think this article is poor but not bad enough to justify WP:TNT, and certainly not without discussion (Wikipedia:Stealth deletion is bad). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

You were the one who after some 10 years decided without any discussion to replace the redirect. I merely restored the situation. The onus is on you; you describe your own edit as bold, and against a "mini-consensus of two folks" and it has been reverted. Here we are discussing it, and so far your position has attracted no support from anyone else. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't matter, you don't get to blank the content because you dislike it. Your position also has no support. If you think it would get it - take it to AfD. I am fine with the article not being stealthy deleted, that's all. If the community reaches consensus it should go, fine. You don't get to blank stuff at will. Wikipedia:Deletion policy is pretty clear. It's not a copyvio, it's not eligible for speedy or prod (since I woudn't approve it). Hence, "Pages that do not fall in the above three categories may be deleted after community discussion at one of the deletion discussion venues". QED. You can go to AfD or not, your call. There is no third option. PS. Please restore the article you redirected again - you are edit warring now. If you choose not to restore it, nor take it to AfD, we can discuss it at AN(I). You don't get to prevent creation or recreation of an article by yourself. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

No, you are edit warring now. As you admitted above, it is 2 against one in terms of views expressed. There is no "stealth", and no deletion - you just took some material from the other article (I think I wrote it back in the day), and added a list of see also links. These bullying tactics are unbecoming. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea what 2 against one you mean - nobody commented here except the two of us. And you are edit warring - you have reverted to an older version, then reverted it again. And you are now violating CIV and NPA with an accusdations of bullying, where all you have to do is to follow policy and take an article you dislike to AfD. AN it is. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

For newcomers: this is what Piotrus wants to restore, rather than the redirect to the far more developed History of Asian art which has been in place for ten years now. From the archive, this in 2016 was the reasonably well-attended discussion where (as well as a rename from "Eastern") redirecting "Asian art" was agreed. Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

If you think this merits a WP:TNT approach, get consensus for your view at AfD, please. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 30 December 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. – robertsky (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

---

History of Asian art → Asian art – Per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian art (now redirected here), and simple logic - such as the fact that this is the main article for Category:Asian art, the very content of this article with headings and numerous main articles that are Fooian art and not History of Fooian art (ex. section "East Asian art", not "History of Easian art", subsection "Chinese art", not "History of Chinese art", main article link to Chinese art, not History of Chinese art (the latter being just a redirect to Chinese art), etc.), and existence of articles like African art, European art and Oceanian art, this should be renamed accordingly. Even the very lead of this article bolds Asian art alongside history of Asian art. No prejudice if someone wants to split of history of... from this in the future. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:38, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

As I understand it, this would in effect overturn the close by OwenX (talk · contribs)? It seems that this move was considered in the deletion discussion and the redirect solution was decided on instead? Jahaza (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, Jahaza! The AfD I closed established a consensus against keeping both articles in place, opting instead to redirect one to the other. What Piotrus is suggesting, however, is a rename of this page, not a spinout that reverses the consensus. Considering the current page covers more than just history, this is a sensible proposal, and it doesn't go against the prior consensus. One point to keep in mind is that this move should be done as a WP:SWAP, or else the history behind the redirect will be deleted, which is an attribution problem if any content was or is to be merged from there. Owen× ☎ 23:45, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, that's exactly how I see it. And the idea came (in that discussion) from @Place Clichy, and is IMHO a very elegant solution for the issue here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:44, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Correct myself on rereading the aforementioned discussion: it seems this idea was first suggested there by @LaundryPizza03 (thank you both in either case) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support move to Asian art. I was a bit confused above, but given that it's not seen as overturning the consensus established at the AfD, I agree that it makes more sense to have it at the main topic rather than at the "History of" the main topic w/o the main topic. Jahaza (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
• SUPPORT moving and retitling "History of Asian art" ---> "Asian art", which is the more comprehensive view of the subject, covering as it does Asian art, past as well as present. Wikipedia discussions often – as in this case – lead to optimal solutions. Nihil novi (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
• Comment @Johnbod: likely disagrees, I think it is good to wait until he makes his case. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
• Thanks - Oppose, but the main thing is to have only one article, while we only have the material for one article, which given most editors preference for talk page wrangles over actually writing articles is very likely to continue for the forseeable future. Of course "the very lead of this article bolds Asian art alongside history of Asian art" - it redirects here! The article is mainly "history". The relevant old discussion was at Talk:History_of_Asian_art/Archive_1#Requested_move_19_January_2016, when this question was addressed. Sadly, the article content has barely changed at all in the 10 years since. Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

  That move was not about moving to or from Asian art, but about moving from History of Eastern art to History of Asian art. And if "the main thing is to have only one article", doesn't it make sense to have it under the main, overarching topic? This article is about Asian art in general, not just history of it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

  • The old discussion covered both matters, & the article as it has now stood for over a decade is much more about the "History of Asian art" than anything else. Anyone seeking information on Contemporary art in Asia is likely to be rather frustrated, though the largest countries have their own articles, like Contemporary Chinese art. As I have explained to you before, even an article such as that is art history. Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

    Of course history is an important part of main topics, whether its history of art to art, or history of sociology to sociology, etc. The point is this article covers more than just history, as can be seen in its content, and therefore should be at Asian art. Just look at, for example, the History_of_Asian_art#Central_Asian_art section: it contains almost nothing about "history", it's all generic statements about Central Asian art in general like "Art in Central Asia is visual art created by the largely Turkic peoples of modern-day Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan...". While the next sentence does touch upon history "In recent centuries...", the following several sententces in that section do not. "Nomadic Folk art serves as a vital aspect of Central Asian Art. The art reflects the core of the lifestyle of nomadic groups residing within the region. One is bound to be awestruck by the beauty of semi-precious stones, quilt, carved door, and embroidered carpets that this art reflects (sic! style...). Central Asia is enriched with the classical music and instruments. Some of the famous classical musical instruments were originated within the Central Asian region. Rubab, Dombra, and Chang are some of the musical instruments used in the musical arts of Central Asia. The lives of Central Asian people revolved around the nomadic lifestyle. Thereby most of the Central Asian arts in the modern times are also inspired by nomadic living showcasing the golden era. As a matter of fact, the touch of tradition and culture in Central Asian art acts as a major attraction factor for the international art forums. The global recognition towards the Central Asian Arts has certainly added up to its worth." This is about Asian art, not history. Do you wish to delete it? I'd rather make the article title reflect the content. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

    • • I see you have rightly removed rather a lot of it, and I have removed a good deal more! If the English wasn't so bad, I'd say it was AI. Obviously the stuff on music belongs elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

        We all know that this kind of article really needs to be WP:TNTed and written from scratch by someone familiar with the topic area and with good sources, and we all know nobody seems to be willing do to so (while we play around with naming), sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support I think that it is more logical to have a "Blank art" article and then later spin off a "History of blank art" when the main article grows too large. The current article (which can certainly be improved) is not limited in scope to history and so the more inclusive title seems more appropriate to me. Cullen328 (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

  Concur. Just where does one draw an arbitrary line between "present" and "past"? Just how "thick" is the chronological level of "the present" that overlies all the "historical past"? And, with the passage of time, would the "present" not be continually moving ahead, rendering the momentary "present" snapshot continually obsolete? Nihil novi (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.