Talk:Doom painting

message: Who painted it?  What era?  What does it look like? -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.234.185.170 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 13 April 2005.
Its not a specific painting, its a type of painting common in medieval churches. http://www.paintedchurch.org/doomcon.htm
I'm not sure if the text there can be used, as I don't know its copyright status. Damburger 23:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: The article is bady tiled; "Doom (painting)" implies a specific work, while the article describes a type. Any suggestions? Ceoil (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe just drop the parenthesis, so Doom painting? (which seems to have been the original title) Tom Harrison Talk 19:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved to plural per . Ceoil (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Tom, I'm not convinced that the thesis of the article works with the inclusion of works by the early neatherlandish or later artists. For one, its seems to have been a much earlier device, c 13th century, second the sources mention its use only in manuscripts and frescos in churches. Third, it seems to have been a delibrate ploy, not an enscapulating term for any work of art detailing the judgement. These artists had a far more sophisticated world view that that displayed by thoes pushing the doom paintings for their own narrow moral end. Ceoil (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be something to what you say. I'd be fine with a 'see also' section, and only replaced that with the paragraph to please you. But I don't see the point of deliberately depriving the reader of links to similar works. One by Fra Angelico illustrates the article. Also, speaking of the thesis of the article, we might need a citation for "means of social control," which sounds a bit anachronistic. Tom Harrison Talk 21:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree on both points. Im taken by the article, and sure that phrase "social control" is very 1977 punk rock. Im not up for much more editing tonight, lets leave it as it is and I do some more reading up. Ceoil (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the phrase. I'm sure your trilled. Well done, great achivement today, you doggedly stuck to your guns from the Rogier article with no curiousity whatsoever as to the truth, with only small snipes here and there as pseud arguments. The small victories are the best ones, eh. Enjoy, you small minded know nothing prick. Or better yet, go back helping MONGO fight the wiki wars of 2006 and leave the art pages in peace. Ceoil (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Are the works by Fra Angelico and Lochner good choices for this article? Tom Harrison Talk 16:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They wouldn't normally be called dooms, but do at least show the typical composition more clearly than the faded recovered English examples, so it's probably best to keep one at least. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

text: In Christian art under themes, one entry is The Last Judgment, which currently redirects here. I wonder if it would be an improvement to expand this article, keeping Doom paintings as a section, and renaming it The Last Judgment in art. Thoughts? Tom Harrison Talk 19:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be willing to work on that. Ceoil (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I would keep this as a separate article, but would happily contribute to The Last Judgment in art.  Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed my mind on this; may as well keep it all together. Johnbod (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Ok, I'll sketch someting up. I think it would be hard to build on the shaky foudations of this page and is better to start from scratch. Harrison, your welcome to join, but dont feel obliged. Ceoil (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Sounds good. I'll follow the page and look in as I have time. Tom Harrison Talk 12:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Dont feel as if you have to. I'd prefer if you preoccupied youself with other, resource draining, ill prepared FAC noms with MONGO, rather than annoying us. Ceoil (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ceoil, it doesn't look like you and I have any significant disagreement about this page; certainly nothing that can't be worked out by deferring to a third opinion or finding a citation or two. If there's a place to persue some grudge from the past, this isn't it. Tom Harrison Talk 16:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not a past grudge Tom, I take people as I find them; you were very snide with me last weekend, across a few pages. I have a good enough antenna for people and you, euuf.  it doesn't look like you and I have any significant disagreement about this page; well actually we do; remember you were trying to tag Michelangelo. Dont try and trick me and rewrite history. I dont think you are straight up, I dont trust you and I dont want to work with you. And the FAC, the way it played out and the aftermat was fortuitous confirmation. Fuck you. Ceoil (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Well known examples

message: Why was the doom painting shown 86.4.160.168 (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History