Jump to content

Talk:Space art

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

Original research

[edit]

This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.

Alright, where does this happen in the article? DD4SKYART 00:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the first paragraph, then the second, and so on. The lack of attribution and lack of verification of claims from reliable sources mean that we only have the author's word that what is written is accurate. - Tiswas(t) 09:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the external links and primarily removed those promoting events and as yet non existent art projects. Zero gravity performance related sites have also been deleted DD4SKYART 01:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Don Davis[reply]

There are established guidelines concerning external links - you are quite correct in removing promotional sites, but it should also be remembered that indiscriminate lists of even on-topic links are not acceptable - Tiswas(t) 09:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have trimmed the article a little, with an intention of maintaining focus on outer space rather than every kind of 'space' imaginable. DD4SKYART 02:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the early part of this article is mainly about 'Art in Space', rather than Space Art as understood by the premier (and only) organisation devoted to this subject, the International Association of Astronomical Artists (IAAA), whose own entries may be seen under 'Astronomical Art' and 'IAAA'. If the article under discussion with the title 'Space Art' contains original material, this was probably written by a member of the SpaceartS network, and thus IS original -- by the same writer! I do not see any material that is inappropriate or 'unverified', and I write as a former President of the IAAA and probably the oldest-established living practitioner of space art (first published in 1952). ~~DAVIDAHARDY~~

That would make anything that you write original research, and possibly with conflicted interest. Attributing material to third party, reliable sources makes for a more robust article - Tiswas(t) 09:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would the person who made these claims re. 'original research' and 'unverified claims' please specify what and where these are -- and what evidence they would accept as verification? The artists writing on this page seem to be the best qualified to comment. ~~DAVIDAHARDY~~

As above, please see WP:V, WP:NOR, (WP:SR), WP:RS - Ask on my talk page if you need further clarification - Tiswas(t) 09:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too have observed that the original article (of April 16 2007) by Don Davis was altered recently. Additions have been made to it that stretches the definition of Space Art to include art intended for space habitation, art about the properties of the experience of space et cetera. A flowchart of the different categories of Space Art is being developed, which will help the space-pirates that alter the definition to include their own spin but without identifying themselves in their shameful process. ~~Kara Szathmary~~ IAAA President and Chairman of the Board of Trustees

Bingo - that is entirely the problem with a lack of verification - editors can write anything they want to, even that space art is the product of pan-dimensional crab people. That being said, if an editor finds a definition from a good source, even if it differs from your own, you do not own the article, and would be expected to offer your own, constructively edited couterpoint. - Tiswas(t) 09:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguation

[edit]

There was a french band called "Space art" in the late 70s (see Space Art on the french wikipedia )
There is a need for disambiguation. Bikepunk2 (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Space art. 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) 07:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge artist lists

[edit]

The lists of space artists here must be merged into List of space artists and the "list" article must be placed into "See also" section. Reason: currently the two list diverged grossly, indicating maintenance problem, typical of WP:FORK. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split into two separate articles

[edit]

There is one article for Marine art and one article for underwater art. Same thing for space, these are two different article topics. Drocj (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think "space art" is not the same as "art in space" which seems to be conflated here. AnotherJokicMurray (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, an article on "astronomical art" was merged into this one on 17 February 2021. WiLaFa (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Astronomical art" is not quite the same as "space art" or "art in space" though. I'm happy to draft an article on art in space and move some stuff over. AnotherJokicMurray (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection, and I had nothing to do with the previous merger. I was just nothing here that they were once two separate articles that were merged. WiLaFa (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am of two minds about this, as there is a great deal of overlap (i.e. Leonopv's first drawing in space, the artwork of Alan Bean, etc). But the article needs work on both concepts and maybe a shorter lead. Most space art I'm aware of involves science fiction pulp and exhibited artwork. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DNA Time Capsule section sounds like self-promo

[edit]

While the artwork described is interesting, the entire section reads like advertising an artist, instead of describing artwork AnotherJokicMurray (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove or reword section on Artistry

[edit]

It seems to me like the section titled Artistry contains no information that is not already stated elsewhere in the article. It is also rather complicated to read. I would suggest either rewriting it to make it worthwhile as its own section, or merging it with other sections. Talgorey (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Space_art&oldid=1247871567"