Jump to content

Talk:Claude Monet/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

So far there has not been consensus here in Talk about the removal of images in the gallery sections of this article. Until that time comes, please refrain from deleting more images. At this time, editors experienced in writing and editing art related articles (e.g., associated with WikiProject Visual arts) have voiced their opinion in favor of keeping gallery images intact, as have others. (See above).Coldcreation (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

While the rest of Wikipedia is saying this is wrong. This article needs to conform to the overall project policy and guidelines. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
There seems to have been at least four voices in favour of the changes.
Your behaviour is impeding my attempts to improve the text. Meanwhile, your plagiarism cannot remain. Amandajm (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
There seems to have been only three voices (non associated with WikiProject Visual arts) in favor of removing images from the galleries. Wait for consensus.Coldcreation (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
One of us finds it silly to add our name to the list of WP:VA participants but contributes many edits to art articles. Also, Amandajm hasn't added herself to the list, but it's clear she's voiced her opinion that the images were excessive an disorganized, and Ewulp, who also didn't !vote, also agreed with the removal of some images. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Ewulp agreed to remove 2 of The Cliffs at Etretat images at your specific request, although initially you wanted all 4 removed; and then FWIW there is this art article too: [1]...Modernist (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me? Scroll up, and:
You: "In my opinion we certainly can do away with 3 of those images - however since Amandajam added all 4 I left them alone out of respect for her. Shall I take 3 out?"
Me: "Given it's the "series" section, I'd leave two to demonstrate it's a series."
Ewulp: "Three of us agree on this." Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me? I scrolled up and saw you say: You haven't explained, for example, why there must be no less than four Etretat images, beyond the IDONTLIKEIT-y "because he's important". and then I said - "In my opinion we certainly can do away with 3 of those images - however since Amandajam added all 4 I left them alone out of respect for her. Shall I take 3 out?"...Modernist (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
That's right. That's exactly what I wrote. No evidence that I ever "initially [...] wanted all 4 [Entretat images] removed", or that Ewulp removed the two at my "specific request". Don't you read these things before you copy & paste them? It would save you much embarrassment. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Not only do I read - but I understand what I read. You initially essentially complained about there being too many images in the series section and the example you gave were the 4 Etretat images; however when I pointed out that they were added by Amandajam - and said I'd remove 3 at your request; you back pedaled to the removal of 2, - which I did not do - however Ewulp removed the 2...Modernist (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
"Backpedaled"?!? If my goal was to remove all four images, then "backpedaling" to two when you offered to remove three makes zero sense. Again, you've provided no evidence but your failed attempt at mindreading. Your textreading is failing just as miserably. Still waiting on those diffs of my alleged "personal attacks", as well. Why not just not lie? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
This is a violation of WP:NPA - your comment - Why not just not lie?...Modernist (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
You have, and always have had, the option of not lying. You have yet to come up with any evidence of any of your false accusations despite numberous calls for diffs. Your lies are amongst your personal attacks, along with the more obvious ones like "You are absurdly over the top and look like an hysterical fool.", "you have contributed nothing but blah blah blah", and baldly false accusations of OWNership and CANVASSing. If you'd just give it up, we'd have no problem. Please, I'm busy preparing ukiyo-e for eventual FAC and don't need to be distracted by your persistent slander. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Look we both have better things to do - lets both of us stop this snark and this bullshit good luck with ukiyo-e...Modernist (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Images have already been removed, remember? There used to be 75 or so. Coldcreation (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

As per consensus, that's right. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The primary role of this article is developing in the reader a familiarity with the work of Claude Monet. I would support the inclusion in this article of an extensive array of images of the works of art of Claude Monet. Bus stop (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Great, then! This article has an extensive array of images of the works of art of Claude Monet. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Bus stop, No-one is suggesting that there should not be an "extensive range" of images. The suggestion is that there should be about 40 well-arranged and well-captioned images rather than 75 images, less well arranged and captioned.
I have made frequent attempts, for example, to enlarge the image of Monet's wife, which is a) biographical, b) mentioned in the text c) significant in terms of his career d) looks very bad as a small, exceedingly dark vertical image jammed in between the brightly coloured landscapes. My attempt to position it appropriately are reverted.
This all began with two extremely large galleries, which Modernist and Coldcreation were determined to keep.
I did some rearranging, and after the initial reversions they have contented themselves with jamming extra images into the new galleries, resulting, in a mess almost as bed as the original one. (NOTE: the text was just as messy, and I have rearranged that as well.
Can I suggest that you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claude_Monet&oldid=586318904 this format] and compare with the curernt mess. ?
Amandajm (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Currently the only important series not represented is the Poplar series. There are 53 images in the galleries and 6 single images. It seems ok to me although I think the Poplars should be included...Modernist (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
FWIW I like the linked edit, and the placement of Impression, Sunrise in the "First 'Impressionist' Exhibition" section. It displays nicely the progression from the comparatively dark works of the '60s. Ewulp (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Currently:
  • Negative: The picture of Camille in a green dress is displayed very badly. It needs to be in the text, adjacent to the biographical material that it pertains to. It looks ghastly where it is. Nobody arranging a paintings on a wall, or in a book would arrange it like that. Putting together a gallery that looks good requires a little more "vision" than either of you seem to have. You do see images. You don't see visual context.
  • Negative The "Impression sunrise" picture is up with his birth, instead of at the crucial point of his life where it belongs.
  • Negative There are two versions of "Dejeuner sur l'herbe", one of which is a murky inadequate repro of one of several studies. It is labelled as if it was part of the finished work. It isn't. It doubles-up on the painting to right, in text, which is a better version in every way.
You two ignorant people do not seem to have noticed that the painting is now discussed in the text, with reference. The lengthy caption is not needed, and not relevant to that image.
  • Wrong - the caption echoes the text. Just as the text I added concerning the Weeping Willow homage to the fallen soldiers and the caption I also added to echo that text...Modernist (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Negative The first gallery looks a mess for several reasons
  • Negative The second gallery which was likewise carefully laid out, now looks a mess.
  • The third gallery has been retained. I cannot understand the lunacy of you two, who keep reverting what bis good, and shoving in what doesn't fit, yet neither you, Modernist, or you Coldcreation, seem to have noticed that the third gallery only has rows of four so there is room in it for an extra picture on each line! Why haven't either of you picked up on this? When I imply that you are not using your eyes, this is good evidence of it!
  • Negative The late years gallery does not need to be overloaded with eight images of which two are alike, and three are alike. This means that three can go, bringing it down to a single row. These really are Monet's least impressive works. Seeing a group of them together in reality is quite distressing.
  • Wrong - Monet's late works are among his best and most important paintings. You are mindbogglingly ignorant of Monet's late works and the impact they had in his lifetime - a dull thud - the meanderings of a blind old man - his waterlilies and other truly greatest works remained ignored, unsold, and unknown for more than 20 years after he died. Only after the triumph of American Abstract Expressionism from the late 1940s early 1950s were his incredible waterlilies able to be properly understood as the brilliant and triumphant work by the one of the greatest masters of contemporary painting. His late works when seen in context with Pollock, Rothko, Guston, Still and others were suddenly understood as close valued field paintings; while during the first 2 decades of the 20th century they were seen as failed forms in contrast. Until the 50s Monet was dismissed as someone who painted pretty little pictures - however when the waterlilies were discovered there was a run on the paintings worldwide, an enormous change to his reputation...Modernist (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • By the way - the waterlilies I am referring to above are the late ones, the large ones, the square ones mostly painted after 1915-1916 and beyond. He apparently only sold one in his lifetime to a Japanese collector with provisos. He sold many of his earlier and smaller and more decorative water lilies through Durand Ruel...Modernist (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh you silly person! I am talking about the paintings that he did while have was so blind that he could no longer see colour. Not the scintillating late waterlily pictures. Amandajm (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
BTW: The Orangerie was exhibiting the big waterlilies, almost immediately after his death, He had a big retrospective in Paris before he died, and another big exhibition specifically of waterlily paintings, in New York, before his death. At the time of his death, he was very far from being "unknown", and his waterlilies had everyone flocking to se them. Don't lecture me on the story of his success.
Learn something lady I'm telling you that the contemporaneous artworld in 1926 was into Surrealism, Cubism, Dada, Monet was old news. He was rich, famous, successful and beside the point. Renoir and Degas were considered far more interesting than Monet in 1926. The paintings at the Orangerie were basically overlooked, and discussed as the meanderings of a blind old man...Modernist (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Then you need to write this into the article, with references, don't you? Amandajm (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Wrong again, lady - I've seen hundreds of late Monet's and none - NONE were done because he was so blind that they weren't still great paintings - SHOW ME ONE that was so weak because he couldn't see colour...Modernist (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
As for the paintings that he did when he was almost blind, some people (abstract expressionists) might see value in them, but the main problem that they have is not so much that he had lost his sense of colour, but that his sense of tonality had gone with it. It is very hard to not to be distressed by those paintings, when they are hanging beside the wonderful pictures that he did before he lost his vision, and after his cataracts were removed. Amandajm (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Modernist, I am not entirely sure what point you are trying to make. I haven't actually commented an Monet's fame in the period between the end of his life, and his resurgence to popularity.
What I have stated is that at the time of his death, he was a very famous man, and a famous painter. The Orangery commission has been likened to the Sistine Chapel ceiling ( and given how old he was, it really was a tremendous undertaking). The honour of the Commission was tremendous. It was the mark of his fame. While it might not have been entirely understood or appreciated by the art critics, or the general public, the very fact that he got to do it signifies how highly he was regarded.
Modernist, ever since you asked me about Madame Monet's name, you have been trying to show me up as ignorant. It is a rather foolish game to play, because I write about such a broad range of subjects that I really have no vested interest in trying to prove you wrong, or myself right. I do not pretend to know every biographical detail of this one painter. I don't need to. If I continue to improve this article, I will discover more, as I go along. Amandajm (talk) 06:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


  • Negative I am disinclined to attempt to show paintings from every series. It is not necessary, in the context of this article. Each major series has its own article. It doesn't all have to be in this one. What we have to convey is the fact that Monet did paint series, and provide the links to see them. Two lrows of pictures is enough. It is a matter of choosing whether the arrangement should be 4x2 or 2x4. I am in favour of four "Haystacks" and four "Houses of Parliament" which together would give a very good indication that Monet applied his techniques to both rural and city landscape.
  • Negative You have deleted the odd picture here and there. I am not quite sure why.
It might be a good place here to state that i am highly in favour of the use of galleries. I utilise them in the articles that I author, all the time.
What I am on about is not deletion of galleries; it is how to make galleries work effectively.
Why you two daft people are fighting the process of improvement is beyond my comprehension.
Why don't you go for a cruise around the article of which I am the major writer?
Let me tell you that there are many many hours of work in almost every one of those galleries. Finding architectural images that fit together well is a much harder ask than making a gallery of the works of a single Impressionist painter.
Every architectural gallery requires hours of searching through hundreds of images, and then cropping and adjusting the chosen pictures so that when four or five images are viewed together, they both look good, and convey they message about architectural structure.
Putting together a real-life exhibition of people's paintings is easy by comparison.
Amandajm (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


Who are you kidding? You whine about 40 or 50 images in an article about (arguably) one of the greatest painters of all time, and yet:

Your Stained glass article contains 92 images, all huge, i.e., too large. Images in galleries do not need to be 200px wide. If someone would like to see the image larger they simply need to click on it.

Your Romanesque architecture article has over 100 images, again, way too large. Images need not be 240px wide in galleries.

Your Architecture of cathedrals and great churches contains over 100 images: 260px is too large for gallery images.

Your Themes in Italian Renaissance painting also houses over 100 images between 200 and 300 pixels wide, i.e., huge.Coldcreation (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear! You have missed the point completely, haven't you?
Let me try again, one more time.
The point that I am making is:
I am in favour of using images.
However, they need to be used appropriately in context.
You don"t seem to have figured out that:
Monet is just one painter. Yes, he is important. But he is just one painter. He is 60 years of art, not 300. His range of work is limited to the achievement of a single man, in a single lifetime. His style progressed, in a very logical manner, with the only deviation being that period when he could not see colour and was no longer defining tone.
What you don't seem to appreciate is that the images need to be laid out so that they work together.
Amandajm (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • No, you miss the point entirely:

You came to this article and without a word in Talk went ahead and deleted a massive amount of images (35 images if I'm not mistaken) from the Claude Monet article, with a message in the Edit summary saying "This is a biography, not a catalogue". I reverted those 4 edits here. You did the same thing in the Pablo Picasso article. Your Edit summary: "Too many pictures of the same year and the same style." Nonsense. I reverted that massive deletion as well. And yet your four articles above contain well over 400 images.

The History of art article covers 30,000 years of creative endeavors, and yet its has 21 images. Your claim that ("Oh dear") stained glass covers a 1,000 years and so should have more images than the Monet article is lame. The other point you missed is that, besides the fact that there are too many images in your articles above, they are too LARGE. Coldcreation (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Amandajm—I think images of the paintings are the mainstay of an article such as this. Our purpose is exploring the output of Claude Monet. I think we should want to see many good quality images. Bus stop (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Amandajm, those articles are just as bad at having too many images. You have subarticles to push galleries into, just as the case here with Monet. We have to keep in mind that image use should be small - 50 is an upper level before you start stressing download limits for end users, and recognize that summary style should be used for such visual articles to avoid huge image counts on single pages. --MASEM (t) 22:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree—those galleries are over the top. My argument (and I think Masem's and others) for reducing the number of images on Monet is not that he was "just one man", but that the images overwhelm the article, especially when there are twety-four subarticles, a list of works, and Commons to deal with that stuff in appropriate detail. The same argument applies, I think, to the articles linked to. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Exactly - no one is demanding images to be deleted, just more judicious use across the various articles, to avoid excess duplication as one would do with text outline at WP:SS. Cleanly a few images from the water lily series are fine here since its a notable series of Monet, but only a few examples are needed in this broad overview of the man's work, and the article on the water lily series can go into greater detail and include more images. --MASEM (t) 00:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Explanation for the uninitiated

User:Masem and User:Curly Turkey, you have looked at the articles, but not read them.

Firstly each one of the articles to which I directed you covers a huge scope, and does so in detail. They are all generic articles. They all cover a very long history/ a very wide geographic area/ or a very large number of individual artists. 100 pictures to demonstrate the essential aspects of the work of 48 individuals in not overkill. Read the text. Sub-articles will not cover it. Romanesque architecture, for example, ought to have a whole book.

Think Generic article. Think VITAL article on very broad topic

I am in favour of using images where the images are truly useful in defining the text. For example:

To a person who is not reading the article, then these are simply five interiors of fairly boring churches (as in "seen one cathedral, you've seen them all") But this gallery goes a lot further than simply saying "This is the way the Romanesque interiors look".

  • Do you want to understand how Romanesque arcade piers and columns were used, and how they developed over 300 years? Here are the typical forms:
  1. Alternation of piers and columns: A-B-B-A
  2. Alternation of vault-supporting piers and arcade piers: A-B-A-B-A
  3. Cylindrical masonry columns with rubble cores
  4. Drum columns with attached shafts
  5. Alternation of complex piers with attached shafts, and decorated masonry columns: A-B-A-B-A

The intention of the gallery is that when the reader has both read the text and looked at the images, they should be able to walk into any Romanesque church, anywhere in Europe and immediately recognise the type of piers and columns that are supporting the arcade and vault. The images are supplying solid information, in the context of the accompanying text. They are not repeating any of the same information. Moreover finding the images that demonstrated the different structures that required illustration was a lot of work.

Next step: read the articles! Amandajm (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Piers and columns
  • St Michael's, Hildesheim, shows two columns set between the piers.
    St Michael's, Hildesheim, shows two columns set between the piers.
  • Mainz Cathedral, Germany, has rectangular piers and possibly the earliest example of an internal elevation of 3 stages. (Gothic vault)
    Mainz Cathedral, Germany, has rectangular piers and possibly the earliest example of an internal elevation of 3 stages. (Gothic vault)
  • Malmesbury Abbey, England, has hollow core columns, probably filled with rubble. (Gothic vault)
    Malmesbury Abbey, England, has hollow core columns, probably filled with rubble. (Gothic vault)
  • The cathedral of Santiago de Compostela, Spain, has large drum columns with attached shafts supporting a barrel vault.
    The cathedral of Santiago de Compostela, Spain, has large drum columns with attached shafts supporting a barrel vault.
  • Durham Cathedral, England, has decorated masonry columns alternating with piers of clustered shafts supporting the earliest pointed high ribs.
    Durham Cathedral, England, has decorated masonry columns alternating with piers of clustered shafts supporting the earliest pointed high ribs.
I'm not read them word for word, but to gain structure and to understand that the article is a top level article that links to several other sub-articles to give broad coverage of the topic. As such, you don't need all the images in the broad top level article page, given that you will be going into more detail in the subpages. A few example images, sure, but if you have a section that starts off with a {{main}} or {{seealso}} header, there is no need to have a gallery associated with that section, but instead locate that in the referenced article(s). In considering the total collection of all articles under that topic, you're free to use a lot of images, but the article structure as such should be done to keep the number of images to a reasonable count on top-level article pages. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
And to add - if we were a book or printed work where transmission size was not an issue, of course you could have a massive, monolithic article with all the free images in the world to make it complete. But we're not a printed work and we have to modify our approach these large articles (in both text and imagery) to make it suitable for the lowest common denominator of what technology our readership might have (including low-bandwidth situations, or small screens, etc.) In our case, that's also recognizing that links to Commons categories is just as appropriate as subarticles. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
MASEM The article Romanesque architecture is a huge subject, and there is a limit to how much it can be chopped up.
It covers a large geographic area with much regional diversity; that diversity is the subject of a second article.
Domestic architecture is barely touched on in the main; it is the subject of a third (groundbreaking) article.
If you want to read one, start with Architecture of cathedrals and great churches. I get really good feedback from that article.
I am in regional Australia, using an old computer and a slow network. I am very familiar with the problems of slow download. For this reason I often avoid using images that are very large. If I crop images (which I frequently do) then I work with them at a smaller scale and save the crop to a maximum of 10" x 20" to avoid download problems. All the more recent articles have been check on mobile phone.
Packed galleries (as in Romanesque architecture) are a really good solution as the images can be quite large, but greatly reduce the download requirements. There are still a couple of technical issues that need ironing out.
The problem with packed galleries is that they don't look good when applied to paintings. The paintings get jammed too close for comfort. They need space to breathe, as if each was in a frame or on a page.
I would not recommend this format for this article. Amandajm (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
We're not an art or photo gallery, we're an encyclopedia. The idea of having "space to breath" is pretty much BS - yes there needs to be white space but that's to make the work readable when image are around, but we're not playing with white space to highlight the images. Even considering the nature of free images, they should not just be added because one has free images to add; there should be some tie in with the text to make their presence non-distracting. In the case of art here, the images should not be dropped in at a top level article without explanation, as this is basically saying "here's some art - appreciate it". As an encyclopedia, we have to remove that step and explain why the art should be appreciated directly (using secondary sources to avoid OR), and in a top-level article, this might be too much detail to go into, but perfectly fine in a sub-topic article. If that can't be done, then a Commons category is the right step. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Your comment "yes there needs to be white space but that's to make the work readable" is simply saying that the image needs "space to breath" in a different manner.
Secondly, layout matters. It matters because it affects readability, and engagement with the subject. When I talk about readability, then I am referring to the readability of the image, as well as the text, because images are visual documents.
It's probably not the right place to go into the pros and cons of packed galleries.
Sufficient to say, they are an excellent way of inserting multiple images, in many circumstances, but not all.
Amandajm (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Masem—examples of Claude Monet's artwork in an article on Claude Monet can be justified. Yet you are saying "Even considering the nature of free images, they should not just be added because one has free images to add; there should be some tie in with the text to make their presence non-distracting." Distracting from what? Distracting from the artwork of Claude Monet? You say "We're not an art or photo gallery, we're an encyclopedia." We are writing an article on Claude Monet, who was an artist. Reproductions of the paintings of Claude Monet are justifiable. This is for the purpose of familiarizing the reader with the artwork of Claude Monet. We should be endeavoring to display the images well, yet you are saying "The idea of having 'space to breath' is pretty much BS - yes there needs to be white space but that's to make the work readable when image are around, but we're not playing with white space to highlight the images." You say that "the images should not be dropped in at a top level article without explanation, as this is basically saying 'here's some art - appreciate it'." I don't think such an "explanation" should be mandatory. If commentary on a specific painting is available and deemed worthy of inclusion it can be added, but editors may find other compelling reasons for choosing particular images. The work may be considered particularly strong or particularly typical of the output of the artist or an art movement. The work can even simply be deemed a good photographic reproduction. Bus stop (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that's much the point I made several days ago, above, when referencing my experience with published articles on fine artists. The editors will frequently add images that have not been mentioned in the text, or will give me the freedom to elaborate in a caption image, or write nothing. I well understand the rationale for integrating images and text, and for discouraging image galleries in articles, especially if the images don't appear to have a clear relevance. I've always seen the merits to each end of this discussion. This is not terribly important business. Progress will be made when all editors are willing to give some ground. JNW (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
JNW (talk), I agree with your last. I have given a great deal of ground, and am prepared to give more.
And the other side seems to have accepted the grouped arrangements, and has added to them, to bring the number up.
But the positioning of the very dark vertical picture of Camille in the striped dress is jarring. I want it either back in the context of the text, or removed altogether.
If Camille goes back in the Biography, then Impression Sunrise must go down into the relevant text. I am not the only person here who has expressed a preference to have it in the relevant text, but any move to do so gets reverted with a statement that there is no consensus to move it there. Add your opinion over the placement of Camille in the striped dress, and "Impression Sunrise", and then we will have a consensus. Amandajm (talk) 10:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Captioning

Leaving aside the number of images debate which will be decided elsewhere, is there concensus to cull the museum names from each image- they say nothing about Claude Monet.

Proposal: Each image should be captioned: Title (Year) <ref>. The art-galleries displaying them should be listed in the references- and allowing a ref to be given in the caption.

For images in the right-panel: Title (Year) Reason for display - wikilinked to subsection where this is explained

-- Clem Rutter (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I would not "cull" such information. It is information pertinent to the painting. As concerns "reason for display", in the instances in which good quality commentary can be provided it should be, but this is not a necessity. Bus stop (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Placing the name of the museum where the painting is located in the caption is standard procedure throughout the art world. No need to cull those since they hardly take up space. And the name of the museum does say something about Monet (look at the names of some of those museums). It informs the viewer as to where to go if they want to see the works in person. Coldcreation (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
With paintings in galleries, the captions can tend to get a bit long for the available space. The idea of putting the name of the gallery as a reference seems a good way to go. I hadn't considered that possibility. The name of the museum reflects on Monet's popularity. But it rarely has anything to do with his reasons for creating the work, and does not aid in the process of making a comparison between the works. For most practical purposes it is superfluous. However, the museum names are useful in so much as they tell the reader where a painting might be available that they can look at. Amandajm (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Pertinent information should be provided in captions to images. This can include well-known and interesting commentary, if brief. Pertinent information can be understood to include dimensions and materials, year painted, title, museum/private collection. Bus stop (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Cull. Wikipedia's purpose is not to convince readers of the importance of the subject, so "look at the names of some of those museums" is an entirely invalid argument. That Monet's paintings hang in some of the world's most well-regarded museums is something that should be mentioned in the body of the text, say in a "Legacy" section (which I hope the "Fame" section will be renamed to). If the file pages are tagged properly, they should have the museum name anyways, as would the pages for the individual works and series (where in most cases it would be acceptable to include the museum in the tag). Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Bus stop, what is under discussion here is specifically the captions under the images in galleries, where there is limited space. In the majority of cases, Monet's paintings were of a similar small landscape size. Some pictures are significant exceptions. Where the work is very large, it is desirable to indicate that this is the case. Otherwise, I don't think it necessary.
Where the image is the main subject of a section of the article, then size should be given. But in this instance we have rows of pics, which were selected to be of similar size and format, for relevant and obvious discussion. Some editors would prefer a muddle of very large paintings, alongside small landscape, very dark vertical images, between the bright small horizontal ones. I would prefer galleries that complemented each other, but it is tiresome trying to make the point that context and arrangement are significant. Amandajm (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Self-revert by Bus Stop. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, good grief. Now we'll all be treated to a Recherche on the virtues and demerits of captioning styles by the King and Queen of the Wall-o'-Text School of Debate™. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Curly Turkey (gobble), must I? Amandajm (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I would say image captions for full paintings in the Claude Monet article should contain: Title of painting, Medium used, Dimensions, Year painted, Museum or other collection in which it is found. I think this is pertinent information for most works of art. Bus stop (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that the above is not taking the situation into account. We are referring to galleries within the article.
It is established in the text that nearly all the works are in oils on canvas.
It is established that nearly all the works displayed in proximity are small canvases.
The year painted is always relevant because this fact changes from work to work.
Giving dimensions and "oil on canvas" eats space for other useful information. Amandajm (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Too right. It's all on the image file. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
We are merely showing the reader reproductions of works of art. These are not the paintings. The images help the reader to conjure up in their mind what the painting might look like. Similarly, knowing the medium in which the artwork is executed and its dimensions helps the reader to understand what the painting might be like. The museum is of interest because it shows the work's ultimate destination. Bus stop (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • We don't need to use the words "oil on canvas" 70 times. It is sufficient to state that the majority of Monet's work was in oil on canvas.
  • The point that I have been trying to make all along is that we are not "merely showing the reader reproductions of the works of art". We are putting images of works of art in context. The context is both the written text, and the other images.
Sentences and paragraphs are constructed to be both meaningful and well-written. If the same word is repeated several times within a sentence, then someone will find a better way to express the meaning , without repetition. It is about meaningful choice. Similarly, images can be put together so that they "read well" or "read badly".
For example, the gallery Paintings 1872-1879 at present "reads well", but the gallery Paintings 1858-1870 reads badly. To an artist's eye, it reads like a sentence with poor grammar and clumsy expression.
Amandajm (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Cut also sizes, which are rarely a surprise with Monet. Some long and uninformative titles could be in the notes frankly (with the museums), replaced by "scene near Paris" etc in text. Keep year, and add text explaining why the image is representative/important. Using notes for all info not in the caption may be a useful compromise here (and elsewhere). Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Impression, soleil levant

Impression, Sunrise (Impression, soleil levant), 1872; the painting that gave its name to the style

Impression, Sunrise at the outset

Keep. This painting is one of the most important paintings in the recent history of art. As indicated at the outset of the article, 'The term "Impressionism" is derived from the title of his painting'. For this reason it is placed as the first image of the article, after that of the artist himself. Placed as such (rather than mixed in with others in a gallery section) shows the reader right from the start who the artist is, the style he is known for (in part), the epoch or movement to which the name of the painting became attached (or visa versa), and so on. Its placement will instigate the reader to see and read further into the article. Always start out with the 'best' or most important work (and always end with one too). Coldcreation (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Er, Um....? Coldcreation, Is there some kind of misunderstanding here? Or is it just another power game that you are playing?
Johnbod, Did anybody suggest that this painting should not be kept? The heading-up of Coldcreations comment is misleading.
The suggestion is that it moves into that part of the text where it is relevant rather than in the early biography i.e. Birth where it is not relevant.
The other suggestion is that the Camille in a green dress moves into the relevant section where:
  1. The painting relates to the text
  2. The painting faces into the page not out of it
  3. The painting is so dark that it doesn't sit well near the others
  • NOTE: The problem with putting the historically important Camille picture into the first section of text, is that it leaves no room for the Impression- Sunrise, in the first section of text.
Cold creation is asking you to meke a decision on the placemenyt of Impression Sunrise which doesn't take into account the fact that the relevant historically important painting i.e. "Camille" ought to be occupying the first position, chronologically.
Against positioning Impression Sunrise is the first paragraph, because of
  1. The layout
  2. the context
  3. the alternatives.
  4. There is no suggestion that it should not be kept

Amandajm (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Coldcreation (talk), I hate to have to be so extraordinarily petty, but if you can remove my layout with the message "Take it to the talk page", then you must expect the same treatment. The painting of Camille in a Green dress looks very bad in that position, particularly as it jars underneath the bright summer picture and is out of context. I don't like it there.
Make it clear to everybody that the choice of lead pic is between two historically important picture, one relevant to the section, and the other relevant to a later section. Amandajm (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Looks good to me now...Modernist (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
"Looks good" is not the criterium. Is it logical? Is it helpful to the reader? Could it be more helpful (or "look better") elsewhere? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Y'all prolly wanna see MOS:IMAGELOCATION, espcially this line: "An image should generally be placed in the section of the article that is most relevant to the image." You can tell by the wording that it's not a hard-and-fast rule, and WP:IGNOREALLRULES and all that, but I think the reasons put forth for including it in the first paragraph are weak. Imagine you're an ignorant reader and come across mention of Impression, Sunrise in the text. Wouldn't you expect an image of the painting to be right there with the text discussing it? Wouldn't you like to look at it while reading about its significance, rather than have to keep scrolling up and down?
    Another thing: is there any good reason for referring to it with the French title on the English Wikipedia? The English title is normally the one favoured in the English sources I'm familiar with—even the the Wikipedia article favours it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
As I said it looks perfectly good right now after my most recent changes. The images correspond correctly with the text...Modernist (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
As far as the title goes - French or English - I'm open to whichever is preferred...Modernist (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Present arrangement with the introduction specifically about the first impressionist exhibition is a good working solution that allows both paintings to be shown to advantage.
  • The text needs honing, because it is now out of chronological context. The text of that section needs to be about the group, the exhibition, and nothing else, i.e. the biographical material about the boat, and the artists painting each other does not belong in the section about the notable exhibition, but in the relevant biographical section.
  • The exhibition needs a second mention when that part of the biography is reached, to put it in context.
  • That's two things: 1. tidy the text by removing boat and any other non exhibition stuff 2. restate some of the information about the friendships and exhibition within the chronology of the article
Amandajm (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Good points...Modernist (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Or you could begin with a general overview of his work and avoid problems with chronology. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Coldcreation, Modernist, the last comment was "good points", but nothing happened.
The First Impressionist exhibition is mentioned in the first section of the main, but has been left out of the chronological telling of Monet's life. It has simply been removed and put further up, leaving a big historicall gap where one of the most important events in his life ought to be.
The second point that I made was concerning that direct quote and the fact that it still was not being treated as such.
I have dealt with the issue of the direct quote. Please deal with the issue of the gap in Monet's biography. The removal of the First Impressionist Exhibition to the front of the main text is only tolerable if you include it in the bio as well, otherwise the whole section needs to be put back where it belongs, chronologically. Amandajm (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree, it is not very sound to distort the order of the text merely to support a desired placement of a jpg. Better to place both the text and the image in the proper chronology. It isn't as if Impression, Sunrise is Monet's only famous painting. Ewulp (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
An excellent solution, Modernist! Amandajm (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Are the galleries in the Monet article excessive?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm here because a close was requested at WP:ANRFC. It seems to me that there is no clear consensus on the volume of images or galleries in this article. Based on the votes alone, excluding those that gave no substantial rationale, the consensus might swing marginally in favour of those advocating some sort of cap on the use of images. Reading the discussion, though, and it is clear that opinions are divided and sensible arguments are put forward on both sides. Several participants advocate for greater use of captions or other text to place the images in context. I would suggest that pursuing this line of discussion would be very sensible. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Should there be so many images in the image galleries? Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Survey

  • Cut to key images, or key pairs in the case of series. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep the article is fine as is...Modernist (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. Coldcreation (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep the article is fine as is but still open to improvement... -- Clem Rutter (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Per WP:IG However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. Links to the Commons categories can be added to the Wikipedia article using the Commons, Commons-inline, or Commons category templates. One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep but add further commentary in captions to explain the selection - the first one has this but others don't. The names of the museums are not needed; that's all on the image files if people want to know. Also trim a few to keep to full rows of 4; 2 rows is usually enough, though 3 rows is justified for the series, where pairs are necessary. Johnbod (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Reduce it does seem like a lot. Is there a way to give it a separate page, sort of like what is done for long bibliographies of writers? Or perhaps the images could all be re-edited into one large image. The reader can then click on it for a higher resolution and larger view of all the paintings together.--Biophily (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Cap We don't want vast parking lots of thumbnails to dwarf the median strips of text. The current edit is about right, although I think we can afford to trim one image from the 1858-1870 section, which would tighten the space. The recommended limits on gallery size are flexible; WP:IG says "See 1750–75 in Western fashion for an example of a good use of galleries". That article features 34 jpgs in galleries (42 jpgs overall); Monet features 53 in galleries (61 images overall) which have been selected with discernment and are appropriately labeled. While it is true that visual artists' biographies that have been promoted to FA do not have this many images—El Greco has16 images in-text and no gallery at all; Caspar David Friedrich has 13 in-text and 8 in the gallery; Paul Kane has 17 and no gallery—Monet may be an exceptional case, not just because of his importance but for his habit of working in series, which requires displaying multiples. Ewulp (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Remove Though it is helpful to see all the works of art, it is not necessary to include on Claude Monet's personal page. Like other users have stated, it is an encyclopedia not a gallery. Let's try cutting the images out and leave a significant amount less. Perhaps we can include one or two paintings from each time period or each style instead of having 6-16 images for each section. Not every image on the page is necessary and to be honest it is visually unappealing and overwhelming to the reader. Meatsgains (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Cap I agree with Ewulp. After visiting the Monet page I did not feel overwhelmed by the pictures included in the biography. If more were to be added I could definitely see how an issue of "vast parking lots of thumbnails" might be an issue. At the end of the day, Monet is a painter, and his paintings are his life work. Sometimes an image can explain far more about a persons life than the words written down by a handful of wikipedia editors. Perhaps we set cap it at 50 or 60 images, based on how many are currently on the page right now? Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 02:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Reduce, at least a little My general thought is to say "they are a painter, so it would be useful content to include lots of their paintings. But by "lots" I tend to think 20 or 30 selected paintings. But the article currently has 61 of his paintings; 56 in galleries and 7 separately. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep but hide This is an important person in the history of painting, in the sense that his work was significantly influential. The work, therefore, merits extensive presentation. In order to reduce the total size of the article, we could hide some images behind a "bannershell," allowing those interested in seeing them in full to do so by clicking on the banner.-The Gnome (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove or keep but hide, and add them back in when/if the article gets longer. --I dream of horses (T) @ 01:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep if captions like those in the first gallery (or of greater length) can be added to the others. My interpretation of WP:IG is that a gallery of any size is theoretically acceptable so long as each image has a caption that explains its relevance to the subjects of the article and the gallery. If no such caption can be written for a certain image then that image ought to be removed. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, I like the unusual shape of this article. It is very nice and gives our reader a good information about the stylistic development of this famous painter and about his work. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is exactly the sort of thing I want to see when reading about the entire career of one of the world's most famous artists. — Scott • talk 12:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Please think of the audience—the images overwhelm the article. The repeated ones (especially Water Lilies—thirteen images from that series alone!) are best dealt with by picking a single image or pair, and then linking to their own article, in which they are dealt with in comprehensive detail. Not every major painting needs an image—not even every painting that has its own article. In the case of many, simply linking in the text is more than sufficient. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"As part of his extensive gardening plans at Giverny, Monet had a pond dug and planted with lilies in 1893. He painted the subject in 1899, and thereafter it dominated his art. He worked continuously for more than twenty years on a large-scale decorative series, attempting to capture every observation, impression, and reflection of the flowers and water. By the mid-1910s, Monet had achieved a completely new, fluid, and somewhat audacious style of painting in which the water-lily pond became the point of departure for an almost abstract art." (The Metropolitan Museum of Art)

This passage from the Met exemplifies the importance of the Water Lilies series in the history of art. Monet’s Water Lilies series contained around 250 paintings. It is hardly excessive to show a dozen of them here. The article is just fine with the images now included. Keep. Coldcreation (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
So you quote the museum, show the reader a couple of Water Lilies, and then point them to Water Lilies, as you would in any other well constructed article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes the paintings need to be shown, this is an article about Claude Monet and his paintings. The paintings need to be seen by our readers...Modernist (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Seventy-five paintings, and no less? Please explain to everyone why anything less than a sprawling virtual catalogue of the man's work is strictly required to be contained in a single article, especially when there are twenty-four more specific subarticles devoted to these pieces. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • His work spanned 2 centuries - mid-19th century revolutionary paintings that changed our perception of the art of painting; then again in the late 19th century with his innovative series paintings and then again with his paintings from the 20th century especially the late work from the 1920s - that remained misunderstood and neglected until the advent of Abstract Expressionism in the 1950s and 1960s. He is one of the most important painters of his era and remains one of the most important painters today. His paintings need to be seen to be appreciated.

Read this: WP:IDON'TLIKEIT...Modernist (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  • "He's important, that's why" is exactly the sort of argument that page discourages. You haven't explained, for example, why there must be no less than four Etretat images, beyond the IDONTLIKEIT-y "because he's important". Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Three of us agree on this. Are there other suggestions for specific cuts? Ewulp (talk)
There are the Water Lilies, which has a section all its own at the end that started as three images, then ballooned to four, and now six. That makes for thirteen images of Water Lilies, when there's a Water Lilies article to point to.
There are also three of the Gare Saint-Lazare. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • There are articles that are bigger than the usual linear format given in WP. This is one; the need of images to illustrate specific points justifies a deviation from the WP norm. The choice of some of the images used should be encouraged. I have a problem, that Monet the person and Monet the media related myth are not the same. L S Lowry has the same problem with the matchstick men myth., if a general reader who has probably visited the Quai d'Orsay or the National comes to this page what do we need to have so they can learn more? We have to lead the reader to threads that make him notable- which are here complex. Explaining the relevance of these threads, in this case requires a lot of visual material. The naive reader with think he painted one canvas of waterlilies. How do we fairly repesent all the sources that treat different aspects he investigated through the medium of waterlilies. The text we have at the moment seems to be a little dry and lacks references to a century of criticism and M's influences on future movements, and analysis from other natioanl views. This is an fluid article- and will never be finished, at this moment in time a heavy use of images does seem right. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Galleries of free images of this quantity is exactly what Commons is for. Selected inline images are fine, but otherwise this violates WP:IG and WP:SIZE concerns in terms of net content delivered to the end user. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Clearly, per that these are ok. Johnbod (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
No they aren't. They are still image repositories: "Here's Monet's works, without commentary - Enjoy!". Yes, they are broken into various periods/series but that's still effectively the same thing. We are an encyclopedia, summarizing the topic, not fully documenting it, and while all of Monet's works are free and certainly possible to display here, that's what Commons is for. By including so many images, you make the page difficult and/or inaccessible to those on low-end connectivity/computers, which is also why it is a size issue. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
In fact they are fine; encyclopedic; informative; educational and valuable...Modernist (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
They are clearly selected, and not the "indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject" which the policy discourages, and which the maze of Commons sub-cats represent. Have you ever looked at Monet on Commons? A nightmare if you want a general idea. He was an important and prolific artist who remains extremely popular, because people like his pictures. Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
@Johnbod: here's some context: this is what the article looked like when this whole kerfuffle first kerfuffled—two super-galleries, the first with 28 images, the second with 40, inaddition to the dozen or so images sprinkled throughout—include several sandwiched along the side of the galleries. While this certianly could use a lot of work, I think you'd probably agree that it's a huge improvement, no? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
This approach is putting too much emphasis on the idea that "let the reader figure out for themselves why something should be appreciated". We're an encyclopedia and meant to get to the point with sourced material, as to summarize the topic and provide pointers to reference material elsewhere. We are not an art appreciation textbook, which this becomes when you use many images in one or more galleries - as there's no associated text to help provide context. I would say if we're talking 4-10 additional gallery images in addition to those in the prose already, as examples, that's reasonable, given that a link to Commons and other reference sites provide the rest. If the Commons categories are a mess, fix them; there's nothing preventing better organization there, particularly if its tied to this article's struct (eg categories for his various series). Compare this to musical artists where yes, the use of sound samples is appropriate to showcase the work, but even on the most prolific composers only have a limited number of samples on the pages, delegating more sound samples when talking about more specific works or series of works. The same can be done here to avoid this here. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
To add one more thing: WP:NOTGALLERY: "Photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons."; the galleries have very weak context (I respect that some editorial discretion has been made) and really this is what Commons' purpose is for. --MASEM (t) 03:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
A point that Modernist has been trying to make but hasn't articulated well is one of the keys things about Monet—that he went, very, very gradually, from a style like this to this over the course of about half a century—Monet's development was not one of sudden breaks, and it is important to show how gradual that development was. I do think that in and of itself is more than enough textual context (assuming the text were fully fleshed out and well written) to provide a large number of images, some of which may not be mentioned specifically in the text. The disagreement is more on just how granular this development should be shown. I personally think it went well beyond what was necessary, to the point that it obscured the article, rather than enlightening it.
I also think it would be much easier to decide what an appropriate balance of images would be if the text were in a much more finished state. It's disappointing that the article on Monet, of all artists, is so underdeveloped. He's one of the major stopping points in even a high school art course (at least, in my high school), one of those artists that doesn't just get mentioned in passing, but gets dwelled upon. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The granularity argument is fair, but still, again, to what level the granulatity should be taken to - and to that end how many images - should be based on that we are an encyclopedia and not a textbook. Monet clearly had well-defined periods in his life, and so highlighting a few examples from each makes sense. And a description about the granularity of his style changes would necessitate a gallery following discussion of this, since this appears to be something easily sourced. We just don't need to outline every granular change in his style - a few key points, and a example of one such change is enough for the encyclopedia reader to understand, and references present will help anyone that needs more information to be able to find it. --MASEM (t) 06:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I suggest moving the left-aligned images to the galleries. They're skewing the text more than anything. Also, resize the right-aligned images to a smaller size. If you're actually trying to read the text, it's difficult to do on an iPhone. I'm not sure about other mobile devices. We might try adding more text. In some cases, the galleries look twice as large as the accompanying bodies of text. Bms4880 (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Response to some of the comments.
User:Johnbod, Bms4880, please take a look at my last edit, before the reinstatement and rearrangement of the images by Modernist and Coldcreation.
  • There were about 40 images. Previous to that, there were 75. I think 40 really is quite enough to demonstrate Monet's diversity, and development. This is not about removing all the galleries. This is really a lot more petty than that.
  • Images that pertained to biography were in the text. That included the very dark vertical image of Camille, which is mentioned in the text and is important biographically. (now in a gallery)
  • The intext images were all uprights, to avoid the sandwiching problem. I sympathise with Bms4880 over the mobile phone problem, but vertical images don't look good in the galleries; and left/right placement is standard. They need to be kept small. Mrs Monet needs to face inwards, as per MOS, and as per arranging pics so they look good. I think that the tiny screen of mobile phones can only be taken into account up to a point.
  • I have avoided using any pictures where the reproduction is of very low quality. (A side issue is that some of the uploads are ridiculous as they are very high resolution images of prints from books. When you look at them in high res, what you see is all the little dots on the printed page, and no detail of the painting whatsoever.)
  • My recent changes have included organising the text as well as the images. The problems were many.
  • I have added a new section, and now, having found my large book, I will check and probably expand the text.
  • With regards to giving the locations of the paintings, it is not necessary in instances where the artist's work is being used for illustratory purposes, e.g. in an article on Argenteuil that includes a painting of the subject by Monet, but it is usual, when the focus of the article is the artists and his works. I would prefer to include the names of the galleries, just as they would be included in a book on the subject.
Amandajm (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2013 (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.

Is this possible?

"It may also be that after surgery he was able to see certain ultraviolet wavelengths of light that are normally excluded by the lens of the eye" This seems like a real stretch for an encyclopedia. More citations needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.100.193 (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Abortion

Didn't his first wife die following a botched abortion? This is what Christoph Heinrich's book says. (213.122.144.32 (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC))

Heinrich (p. 48) expresses some uncertainty, saying Camille's health worsened in her last years "apparently as a result of an unsuccessful abortion". It seems that the available evidence does not allow more than reasoned conjecture. Zeidler (Monet, 2000, p. 51) says, "Camille's health had deteriorated since 1876, possibly as a result of a bungled abortion". Stuckey (Monet: A Retrospective, 1985, p. 13) says., "Camille becomes seriously ill, possibly from an attempted abortion". Baillio (Claude Monet (1840-1926): A Tribute To Daniel Wildenstein and Katia Granoff, 2007, p. 160) has this: "Later that year, Camille Monet is once again pregnant and is diagnosed with a tumor of the uterus that may be the result of a cancer or a botched abortion". Kostenevich (French Art Treasures at the Hermitage, 1999) quotes a letter from that year in which Monet announces he is "soon to be a father again" and says it "would seem to contradict Danielsson's theory of an abortion. lt is likely that the birth took place, but that either the child was stillbom or died soon after birth". Wikipedia's article on Camille Doncieux covers the possible causes of her death in more detail. Ewulp (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Graphic Novel about Monet

I think the following information should be added to the "Fame" section or a new "Monet in the Media" section should be started: http://www.lelombard.com/albums-fiche-bd/monet/monet-nomade-lumiere,3608.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.229.157.9 (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Official honours

I read that, so far from being ignored by the establishment, he was offered various official honours, but declined every one of them. Can we mention these offers? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Claude Monet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Claude Monet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Claude Monet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Degenerate art

Can it be specified that his legacy was considered degenerate in Hitler's Germany?--Adûnâi (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Last name of his mother

I'm sure her last name wasn't Monet. Does anyone know her name before she married? Thanks! Barbara Touburg (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The Grand Decorations

There is no mention of Monet's most important painting project on this page. The series of waterlily murals known as the Grand Decorations were both his largest paintings and the ones he personally considered his greatest paintings. There is not even a reference to the Musee l'Orangerie where most of them are displayed, which is one of only two museums in the world to my knowledge dedicated to Monet, and the only one which he helped design. A subsection should be added to his later life section discussing both of these topics.

An overview of these paintings can be read here: https://www.musee-orangerie.fr/en/article/history-water-lilies-cycle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenamcdonald (talk • contribs) 01:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2020

CLI.140 (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

It is missing his painting "Le Geldersekade de Amsterdam, l'hiver" 1871-1874 Claude Monet.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 23:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
And you also might want to check List of works by Claude Monet to see if it's there, and if not it should be if it's an actual Monet. Monet painted so many works that not all of them would be listed on this, his main page, but the list page should contain it. Thanks for bringing it to Wikipedia's attention (and please join in editing if you feel so inclined, not a bad way to pass time and contribute to the world's knowledge base). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Is "Water Lilies" or "Impression, Sunrise" more important?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4#Swap_Water_Lilies_(Monet_series)_for_Impression,_Sunrise. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The Current Usage of Galleries - And Their Improvement.

With the work done upon the galleries, I'm personally satisfied with their current status :) DMT biscuit (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Notifying the top four editors--but all are welcome to discuss: @Amandajm, Modernist, Coldcreation, and Eli185: Per WP:GALLERY:

"Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons."

I'd personally say that the current usage of galleries is a misstep, affecting readability and prose. They're indiscriminate and inconsiderate. Paintings: 1858–1872, is not only too wide of a net to cast, affecting any specific feature one wishes to highlight, but lacks any particular. Displays of Monet's artistic evolution should be supported by prose and sources not an ostensibly random assortment of paintings. We're an encyclopedia, not a museum. Pictures of Monet's paintings are of course necessary and can support said progression--an idea supported by WP:GALLERY.

"Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made." - WP:GALLERY

How many paintings of his Garden or water lilies do we really need to be included?

I elect that we imitate the style of Vincent Van Gogh. Excluding the ones in S&W, for obvious reasons, there's a clear, specific and close time frame. And almost always a thematic throughline. It could be his more muted paintings or how he displayed people in his paintings. There are also at most five paintings displayed, thus meaning readability is hardly affected. In my opinion, this is the ideal way. DMT biscuit (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Frankly IMO the imagery needs work; the images and galleries need filling in with more paintings; and definitely the galleries need to be filled in and need to work better with the text...Modernist (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Modernist: What do you have in my mind? I personally think the galleries currently suffer from having too many paintings but I don't wish to shoot down any worthwhile suggestions regarding their expansion. DMT biscuit (talk) 07:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • for the record, agree that work needed here, and that Modernist did 99% of the image selection and placement at VVG, and am inclined to thrust his judgement overall. However we need to keep in mind the images to text ration - this page isn't as developed as VVG, so too many images may make it appear lopsided. Ceoil (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I just reviewed the full article and find it perfectly balanced (image/text wise). The text can always be improved. But the images shown here are impeccably placed, very instructive, and exactly the quality and quantity I would expect to see in an article on such an artist. Bravo!!! Coldcreation (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with Coldcreation, looks good. Have watched the nice work of editors over the last few days. As for the question of how many of the water lilies does the page need? All of them (in a perfect universe, and in holograph and sense-o-round)! Randy Kryn (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
ok, largely agree, but frankly, think the amount in the "Monet's methods" is a bit excessive and counter productive. My eyes glazed over after the first 8! Ceoil (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Without wanting to be a pain, the other galleries are great, but if this one is kept at a similar length, it would help to give more forceful impact to the six or 8 remaining. Ceoil (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Uh, sorry also guys, but there is three to many also in "Paintings 1858–1872". Don't want fall out with anybody here as we have all known each other with years, but thats my opinion. Too many images spoils the broth. Ceoil (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, eight seems a good number at the series gallery, given the repetition of similar subjects. Ten at 1858-1872 works. Maybe Modernist and Ceoil can do the trimming, and then if there's disagreement on one or more a quick discussion would likely resolve it. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Eight does seem to be a suitable number. DMT biscuit (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
If anything should be applied to the galleries it's a sense of uniform :) DMT biscuit (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
A tweaking idea. Since the discussion is revolving around number per gallery, and some galleries will be cut by quite a bit, how about setting the number of images-per at nine? That makes for a nice three rows on smaller screens, and actually reduces the number of images. The two existing large galleries might also be trimmed enough by that point. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Fine with that. To me rows of 4 look better than rows of 3; the most pleasing gallery atm is "Late paintings", which is 4 images x 2 rows; dont have an issue if this becomes 4 x 3. But then would lock that format through out the page. DMT? Ceoil (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I support this. Maybe we should take a vote, a la vital articles talk page. DMT biscuit (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I "Monet's garden" is the most visually pleasing and compatible with the text gallery we have. It's the style I'd personally advocate for. DMT biscuit (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes the selected works are very pleasingly ordered and arranged. Ceoil (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
@Modernist: Pespite my reservations with expansion, I really like what you've done with the gallery in method :) It's size seems appropriate for the topic. DMT biscuit (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Of course, if the 1858–1872 text was expanded, who could split the galle4ry in 2 or 3, but still retain all the nice images (hint hint). Ceoil (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Considering it's now at 4 rows I'd support a split, manner pending. DMT biscuit (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I could do a hack job, but would prefer if Modernist, who has more knowledge and a keener eye, did the honours. Ceoil (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2021

"He married Camille on 28 June 1870, just before the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War.[33] During the war, he and his family lived in London and the Netherlands. Monet, Pissarro and Charles-François Daubigny lived in self-imposed exile.[19][a] While living in London, Monet met Paul Durand-Ruel, John Constable and J. M. W. Turner.[16]"

SUGGESTED EDIT: Remove reference to meeting Constable and Turner

This sentence appears in the wikipedia bio for the artist Claude Monet. It is clearly wrong because both John Constable and JM W Turner were dead before 1870 <ref>Wikipedia<ref> (I think Constable died 1837ish and Turner in 1851). Nickranson (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 19:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for catching this - I had misinterpreted the use of "discovered" in a source to mean met. It's minor edits like this that the sites lives upon. DMT biscuit (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Galleries

I went on a deletion spree yesterday, but was mostly reverted, which is fine. Consensus is against me, and to be honest I think the layout is lovely (was thinking more re policy), so wont be doing that again. As a side note, its great to see all the recent focus and work. I've worked before with DMT on a few [seriously depressing] alt music pages, and am delighted to see him here. Ceoil (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ceoil: The sentiment is reciprocated. And for what it's worth, I agree the galleries can be improved, I just think now is perhaps not the moment. DMT biscuit (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
My hope is that expansion will go a long way towards helping us keep the current image selection. Maybe if we get to have dedicated sections on the different series, for eg. You might have gathered that I highly respect Modernist, we have done a lot of work together in the past, and for me his word goes...thus am thinking "must get to work on those series"!!! Ceoil (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

what is meant here.

"His home, garden, and waterlily pond were bequeathed by his son Michel, his only heir, to the French Academy of Fine Arts (part of the Institut de France) in 1966. Through the Fondation Claude Monet, the house and gardens were opened for visits in 1980, following restoration." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Monet#Death

does this mean that through the Fondation Claude Monet the house, garden and pond where given to the French Academy of Fine Arts. or that through the fondation Claude Monet the house,garden and pond where made public? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DRAGON BOOSTER (talk • contribs) 06:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cruvalcaba5.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lbaughan7.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Claude_Monet/Archive_2&oldid=1136615691"