Talk:Pregnancy in art
Appearance
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pregnancy in art article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A fact from Pregnancy in art appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 May 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Attribution
[edit]Text copied from Desco da parto to Pregnancy in art. See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- It was me again. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Beautiful article
[edit]I was wondering if those early 20th century American photographs of couples on the day of their wedding, showing a ghost child playing next to them on the carpet, would apply here? Yoninah (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! I don't know any of those - wedding photos are a bit marginal as art frankly, & it sounds as if this is more Fertility in art anyway. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)