Talk:List of pin-up artists
Many of these artists aren't part of the classic Pinup movement... they just create images of sexy/naked women. Some are hardcore fantasy artists that are most likely listed elsewhere. Also, this convention of just tacking a URL after the name seems unique to this page. I'm inclined to remove them all... thoughts? JeffJonez 15:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Should there be so many redlinked artists listed here? Just looking, it seems like 2/3rds of the artists don't have articles, which seems unusual. - JeffJonez (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
it would seem that to be included on this list, one would meed to be discussed in multiple well regarded printed sources as a pin-up artist of note. if everyone with a website or a "art of" book who draws girls should be on the list it would include thousands of names. so i have deleted a few names from the list who are not noteable. also, shouldnt patrick nagel be on this list? Scottfavor
- If he's not on the list, you should add him! :) If you haven't I will. - JeffJonez (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
as of now it is an incomplete and convoluted mess. anyone can post a wikipedia page and say they are a pin-up artist and that does not make them notable. the name that had me take a closer look at the list was Josh Howard. he is a comic artist not a notable pin-up artist. while someone like Adam Hughes is a actually a notable current pin-up artist, who does comics, and is not included on the list. instead of muddying the waters, i just deleted those who have dubious credentials. i think you could just look at the art of those i omitted and it would be fairly easy to see that they do not rank anywhere near artist like Vargas, Olivia, Elvgren, Buell, etc, and the others that i didn't delete. (and you notice i only suggest one name to be added as Nagel defined the genre for a time and deserves to be ranked amongst truly notable pin-up artists. like i said in the previous comments, listing the ones i deleted leaves this list completely ignoring hundreds of guy who are as good or even much better than those i deleted, yet who are not as "notable" as those i left on the list). if you do not see it that way, i will defer to your judgement.Scottfavor —Preceding undated comment added 05:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC).
- To be fair, I did not evaluate all of your removals. I only saw that Jon Hul was removed, whom I instantly recognized as a bonafide pinup artist, and concluded your methodology was flawed. Using your example of Josh Howard, I personally like what I see of his work, and would consider him a pinup artist. You're certainly not required to defer to my judgment, but the whole question of notability isn't really up to any one person. As near as I can tell about Wikipedia: if you're in, you're in. - JeffJonez (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Using the Josh Howard example, just because he draws cute girls, does not make him a "notable" pin-up artist. tracing his style influences, then it requires you to add names of better artist who he molded his style from. such as: Bruce Timm, Shane Glines, Ronnie Del Carmen, Lynne Naylor, Alberto Ruiz, etc. Names just off the top of my head that are more "notable" and influential as artist who draw cute girls. it seems that either the list should be more limited, or greatly expanded. for everyone i deleted, there were 10 i could have added that do as good or better pin-ups in their style and who have more notoriety in print and among collectors of the genre. Scottfavor —Preceding undated comment added 14:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC).
- This is not a list of "notable pinup artists". This is a list of pinup artists. If the artist has an article in Wikipedia, that artist has been deemed notable by the crowd and belongs on this list. Instead of deleting artists that don't meet your arbitrary level of proficiency or fame, how about adding those artists you mention above to the list? If they don't have articles, how about create them? - JeffJonez (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
if you prefer the term "classic pin-up movement" to "notable" and thats the idea we are working from, there are still many names on the list that do not fit into that category as i stated before. there is a difference between comic book artist (or any illustration style in general), and pin-up artist, regardless of their having a wikipedia article about them. the article should not make the artist? as JeffJonez wrote: Many of these artists aren't part of the classic Pinup movement... they just create images of sexy/naked women" here are some names for your review, regardless of wikipedia pages about them, that are normally considered part of the classic pin-up movement and are not now on this list: Joe De Mers, Hary Ekman, Pearl Frush, Earl Mac Pherson, Bill Medcalf, Al Moore, K.O. Munson, Walt Otto, Edward Runci, J. Scott Pike, and of course Fritz Willis, just to name a few. Then if you have Irving Klaw and Bill Ward (names i didn't dispute), should Eric Stanton be included? Scottfavor —Preceding undated comment added 13:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC).
- I guess you're saying if it doesn't look like Gil Elvgren it doesn't belong on this list. I guess I'm a "Big Tent" person, and disagree. I agree with that JeffJonez guy, but two years later, I've given up on being the arbiter of who's classic, and who just likes drawing pinups. - JeffJonez (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
i do understand your point. i do agree about a big tent, my last comment was an attempt to illustrate some glaring omissions of the list, as they are all artists that firmly belong under the title of classic pin-up. names like Dave Nestler, Dave Stevens, Niso Ramponi, Joseph Linser, Adam Hughes, Giovanna Casotto, Joe Chiodo, and Armando Huerta all have a claim under the tent and are not here (and by no means are they the only ones out there, just easy choices). talent and influence should be part of the criteria of who gets listed. there should be thought given to what they have really contributed to the form. just saying you do pin-ups and someone making a wikipedia entry does not really make someone a classic pin-up artist. ability should be considered. the various sources-publications their work appears in (beyond their own website and wikipedia page) should also be considered. big tents are fine, they should just be built on solid ground (yes some kind of standard) when it is meant to represent something as heavy as who should be in an encyclopedia. hence i originally intended to just pare this list down to a very consise form as it was not my plan to attempt to be the arbitor of anything either. Scottfavor —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC).
- You seem to have two issues here:
- 1) You feel that some artists that belong on this list are missing. I agree. If you don't add them, I will.
- 2) You feel that some artists that are in this list don't belong. I disagree. If they're listed in wikipedia, and are or can be described as a pinup artist, then they should be in this list. Any other position does not seem internally consistent, nor does wp:notability seem to be a factor. If there are artists here that clearly don't focus primarily on glamor images of women (or men), then they should go.
deleted a recently added name. adding deveiant art page pin-up artists would make this list expand into the thousands. didnt see her published anywhere or commented on other than what they were promoting themselves.--Scottfavor (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorting of names
Would anyone approve of sorting this list by family name? What I mean is, make it to where it is surname, first name. With possible exceptions to some names. Maximus23623 (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Color me confused. That's how it *is* currently sorted. Artists are listed by family name, but displayed naturally with given name first. That seems to be the norm here in wikiland. JeffJonez (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)