Template talk:Infobox artist/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Background color

What is the background color? How is it set? -Wisekwai 17:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if someone could please post a key to the colors used on infobox. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Bug report

Hello. just to let you know, when dates are unknown, this template says "Born" and can't be used. Example here -Susanlesch 00:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've updated it so that it only displays "Born" (and the birthdate and location) if the birthdate parameter is populated. Ideally it would display "Born" if either the birthdate _or_ location parameters were specified, but my scripting skills don't extend that far! DH85868993 (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Request

Would it be possible to add a 'website' parameter to this article for contemporary artists? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you use this template?

How does one actually use this infobox? If one adds {{Infobox artist}} one does not get any clue as to how to add any parameters to it. DuncanHill (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears transcluded usage info at Template:Infobox artist/doc was vandalised. Fixed. Tyrenius (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - that makes much more sense now! DuncanHill (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It certainly didn't make much before. I've protected the transcluded documentation page and semi protected this. You might like to watchlist it. Tyrenius (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, and again many thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Default colour

I wonder if someone could have a look at this, as the blue colour of the bar at the top does not appear automatically when the template is pasted as shown in the documentation. Tyrenius (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

To get the default blue bar, omit the "| bgcolour = " line. DH85868993 (talk) 07:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Above copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).

Template changed so code is in it now. Ty 04:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

bug

This template seems to create extra inter wiki links when used. Does anyone know about this template? Victuallers (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain in more detail? Ty 12:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The bug was fixed on 22 February 2008. DH85868993 (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Buggy behavior still showing up in e.g. Josef Moroder-Lusenberg, where the only correct interlanguage link in the left panel is to the Italian article on the artist. Several spurious links in that panel point to the template itself, in other wikipedias. A quick try just now convinced me that I don't have the knowledge to fix it properly. __Just plain Bill (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it again. (The German interwiki link is also valid). DH85868993 (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick, cheers! Before, there was some interference in the German link... looks good now. Thanks! __Just plain Bill (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed tweaks

Famous works

I propose changing this to "key works" or somesuch. Tyrenius (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Famous is surely a word we are supposed to avoid for several reasons; "key" would be better. All the headings in these boxes encourage inaccurate information - especially the "movement" one. I don't think the web-site should be included. Imho, much the most important point is to make it clear that no one is obliged to use this box, and that very often a work makes a better lead image. It would be good to get clear concensus on that. Johnbod (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

How about "significant works"? Not all important works by an artist are famous. The lesser known ones are often significant. --sparkit^TALK 04:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's necessary to decide what this field is for. I see it as highlighting a work or small number of works that would be useful for the reader to know about as a starting point to understand the artist's oeuvre. I'm trying for a neutral-sounding description, so the field will be equally useful in an article on a major historic artist and an article on a minor (but within wiki terms "notable") contemporary artist. Tyrenius (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose changing to simply "works". That allows flexibility and it's obvious that it will be just a selection of key/significant/important/representative works that will be included. Ty 12:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, there is a case for advising this should normally only be used to link to other articles; in theory these should normally be the most important. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If there are separate articles on works, then they should be the priority inclusion, but, if not, then it would be useful in many cases to name some works. The removal of "famous" makes this more appropriate. Ty 04:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree...Modernist (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've changed "Famous works" to "Works". Ty 00:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Influenced by

I propose changing "influenced by" to "influences", mainly to slightly shorten the length of the description (also to pair with "influenced"). Ty 12:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

better. "Style" is often better for earlier artists than "movement" too. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It gets complicated but I think influences is better then influenced by...Modernist (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "influenced by" and "influenced" should be in the Template:Infobox artist. It doesn't seem a good idea to try to state authoritatively that someone influenced someone else. It's the sort of thing that should in all cases require a citation. Getting it wrong I think would be highly improper. Also, I just think it is exceedingly difficult to get such a thing right, in most instances. Bus stop (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Movement

Copied from above:

"Style" is often better for earlier artists than "movement" too. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you give an example or two? Ty 04:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well "movement" is increasingly untenable for anyone before say 1800, and completely so for anyone before say 1500. "Baroque", "Early Renaissance" , let alone "Gothic" should not be described as movements. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It can get complicated, because while it works for earlier artists, it's dicey for more contemporary art. - A derivative abstract expressionist or a derivative pop artist might be described as in the style of Jackson Pollock or Andy Warhol...which can become a serious pejorative depending on the context. In contrast with in the style of 14th century Italian Renaissance or late 19th century Art Nouveau which is simply intended as a descriptive...Modernist (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec-refactored)I'm not suggesting "style" should relate to other artists - far from it. I think there should be the option of style, movement, and maybe "school", though that is out of fashion now. But many modern painters aren't in a "movement" either - Stanley Spencer, Rodrigo Moynihan, and so on. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC) PS We don't have an article on Rodrigo Moynihan? Eeek! Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I find "movement" is useful for modern artists. Would it not fit "Renaissance", "Baroque" etc. also, not perhaps "movement" in the modern sense, but still a movement. Alternatively an additional field could be created for "period" or something similar. Ty 13:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so - it would I think be hard to reference such usage to decent art-historical sources; certainly it is not usual. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. Spencer, movement = modernism/figurative painting/expressionism even? Ty 13:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

All more misleading than not imho; that is the fundamental problem with disinfoboxes in this sort of area, as opposed to baseball players or species of beetle (apart from keeping the lead pic too small!). Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not mandatory to fill in all the fields. But how would you describe the Renaissance then - as a "period" perhaps? Ty 15:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be best I suppose - also for Gothic. But Insular art (not that we really have any named artists) is a style. Can one just overwrite these titles in the template with the most suitable? Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just tried. That field simply doesn't appear then. Re. Insular art - it also says its a period. Is there anything which is a style, that is not part of a bigger grouping? Ty 23:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So we have a few options: - Period, Movement and Style - and they are and/or although some can remain blank. Modernist (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to be proved wrong, but my thoughts at the moment are that style is not significant enough and can be covered by an umbrella grouping. It is likely to mislead people filling in the template. I can see Movement as one field and period following it as another field (filling in one or other or both). Ty 23:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Working backwards, some terms that might be inserted: Insular art, Die Brucke, Expressionism, Surrealism, Renaissance. What word covers all those - classification? Doesn't sound quite right, and not as good as Movement for modern groups. Ty 00:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Period & movement together might do it, although many will then use both. Insular is, if you like, a period in Ireland, but a style in Scotland and England, as other styles were in use at the same period. The modern ones are best called movements (but I still think the only movement Stanley Spencer was in was his own), but Renaissance is a style (or several) and a period (or several). What movement was your last double-barrelled DYK in? But then you wisely didn't use an infobox for her. Johnbod (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In the end, it sounds like the word needs to be broad enough to encompass movements, classes, and styles, and will likely be something pretty general. Not that these represent an improvement, but other synonyms include category, genre, and school. Each is imperfect for various reasons (category sounds something like classification, a bit scientific, perhaps; genre can be construed as referring to subject matter; and school carries its own self-limiting implications), but they aren't all bad, either. By the way, is the 'Awards' heading of much value? JNW (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It is if you've won the Turner Prize or been given the Legion of Honour... Ty 03:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Since it is hard for me to recall an award of similar weight in the U.S., I'm inclined to favor 'Honors' (Honours). JNW (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Legion of Honour has 5 grades, totalling over 100,000 members:"As of 2000 the actual membership was 61 Grand Cross, 321 Grand Officers, 3,626 Commanders, 22,401 Officers and 87,371 Knights.

It is a popular joke that half of France wants the order and the other half already owns it,...". I suspect most short biographies, and our articles, don't bother to mention it, like the British Order of the British Empire. The Prix de Rome and the Order of Merit might be worth having in the infobox. Johnbod (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

While I'm ok with movement, and period, I also like the idea of being able to use terms like style, genre, and school, when appropriate. Thats what I don't like about the infoboxes in general, I wish they were more flexible...Modernist (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, plus they are often added by those not very familiar with the subject. Johnbod (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be possible to put in all those fields. Some instruction would need to be given for their proper usage. It's simply necessary to reach a consensus on the fields which should be there, keeping the number to the minimum necessary. Ty 05:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Genre would certainly be the best for some artists. Can one add them all with a "use only one of the following" note. Johnbod (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be possible. Better would be to find a word that would fit them all. There must be one! Ty 02:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Tricky, as the above has shown - Damien Hirst and, um, Carlo Frigerio? Johnbod (talk) 08:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Under the 'one word fits all' category, I would propose for consideration type, designation, or description as possibilities. These are broad enough to avoid the limitations of style, school, movement, and period (part of which is our familiarity with the standard art history terms and their specific usages), and they read as quite neutral. JNW (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How about grouping? Or else maybe two fields, one saying movement (as it works so well for modern art) and the other saying period. That would cover most options. Ty 23:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the latter - grouping is maybe acceptable for all, but not a standard term, and ideal for few if any. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Where the issue of style arises, which you mentioned earlier, there could be a qualifier, perhaps putting it in the period field with: "Insular art (style)". Ty 02:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Shows

I propose adding this field after "Works". It would be very useful for some contemporary artists, and can be ignored where it is not relevant for earlier periods. Ty 02:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Collections

I propose adding this after "shows". Ty 02:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Must we? What does one do for Raphael, or indeed Renoir? To single one out seems invidious, to list all major ones would take too much room. Plus most will be in the Anglosphere. Aren't the works of most contemporary figures pretty widely spread? These things take up enough space already. Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, drop this one. Ty 10:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Influenced

Should the language in the parameters indicate that artist "A" (an artist influenced by the article's subject, who we will call artist "B") should be recognized as such in the literature on artist "B", and not only in the literature on artist "A"? This issue has just come up at Talk:Edvard Munch, and previously at Talk:Gustav Klimt. Ewulp (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The more seminal the artist, the greater the temptation to leave the field blank, which seems satisfactory. Which artists (naming no more than 5) were influenced by Michelangelo, or Monet? Ewulp (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The infobox should be a skeleton summary of the article, not include new information, so unless the article talks about (and substantiates) something, there's no justification for including it in the infobox. Perhaps that ought to be made clear. Ty 11:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; in my view this field should be used sparingly, and usually only in cases of artists who were pretty contemporary to each other. We know Velazquez influenced John Singer Sargent 250 years later, but i don't think the infobox should say this. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a matter of notability of the influenced artist (not any Tom, Dick or Harriet) and significance of the influence - also whether it is included in the article where the infobox resides. I don't see a bar because of time lapse though. Surely that's part of the continuity of culture. Ty 17:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Signature, Ethnicity and Residence

Please let's have an entry for that all important signature in the form

| signature =

where "signature" is a

Filename of an image of the scientist's signature (if available)

This is already available for "Template:Infobox Scientist" and should be so for artists too.

Also, additional useful fields would be

| ethnicity

and

| residence

Template colour

Black as in this version based on P:VA or blue as in this version based on WP:WPVA, or another colour altogether? Objection that blue looks horrible on Leonardo da Vinci, but I don't see that at all. Ty 01:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the color/colour of the bar can be changed when using the template by modifying the field:

| bgcolour = #6495ED

Ty 01:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea that the color in the bar can change..Modernist (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Does the choice of colour have any denotations? Should it? For example, a certain colour for nationality, movement, period... or is the choice purely aesthetic to link with the image used? --Ducio1234 (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no consensus on such matters. This conversation may interest you at Template talk:Young British Artists/Archive 1. I think it is preferable to minimise colour changes and largely stick to one that does the job for consistency. Ty 02:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Interlink

Please add it:Template:Infobox artista, thanks. 146.133.226.3 (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ty 02:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Block blue default

I'm wondering why the block blue is the default color?. I think it looks unattractive and not well rendered with the page. I would suggest a lighter pastel tone. I know the colour can be changed by preference for each article but I think its best to have a lighter default color for all for consistency. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a blue theme picked up from Portal:Visual arts and Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts and {{WPVA}}. I find it does the job perfectly well and sits fine on the page. It is neutral as far as most images likely to be used in artist articles. The proposed alternative is quite insipid and arbitrary, also not compatible with a lot of the images which it is likely to be on a page with. I suggest the best thing is to post some suggested samples and invite debate about the matter to reach a consensus on it. Ty 23:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I prefer this blue: [1] to this: proposed alternative, I like the basic idea of the blue bar, with the opportunity of changing the color. Sometimes grey works fine: [2], sometimes orange: [3], sometimes ochre: [4], but the blue as standard: [5] makes sense to me...Modernist (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

How about matching it with the color of Portal:Visual arts or a lighter alternative #CCCCFF? Personally I prefer the color used on the portal visual arts and it would make sense to match it in the articles. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned - I prefer the clear strong blue, and I support individual color changes for specific articles according to the editorial judgment of the contributors....Modernist (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. However, if it is wished to examine options, I suggest posting them below in the way I have started and commenting. Option two is the alternative suggested above by Blofeld. Ty 01:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Option 1

Option 1

• The existing colour, which has been established for some time. It is compatible with a range of colours likely to be found in images on an artist page. It is not a strident colour. I think it is fine. Ty 01:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Option 2

Option 2

• A pastel shade which is distinctly unsympathetic to the fuller colours likely to be found in a lot of paintings. Definitely not.

Spouse, partner and children parameters

Most other person bio infoboxes have these parameters. Please can they be added to this one? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Signature

I propose that a signature parameter is added. Connormah (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, seems useful as artists usually leave their signatures on works. Brandt 18:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added it, but there is an un necessary space inbetween the suposed image and the word 'Signature'. Can anyone help fix? Connormah (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit to match {{infobox scientist}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a signature parameter should be included. Artists don't necessarily leave their signatures on works, their signatures vary from work to work, and Wikipedia should not be even attempting or pretending to attempt to verify the authenticity of artworks. If the signature exists in a reproduction of a work pictured on wiki — that should be the extent of depiction of a signature. Bus stop (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the signature line is a mistake. It lends a garish, amateurish and somewhat artificial ambiance to the articles. This should be optional..Modernist (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The field is optional, though. Connormah (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggest show/hide feature for Influenced by/Influenced params

I would like to suggest the addition of a show/hide feature for the Influenced by/Influenced features of the artist infobox, as implemented in Template:Infobox Writer and Template:Infobox Philosopher - the suggestion which led to its implementation for the latter can be found here, that page also including an example of the infobox feature as implemented here. In many cases numerous influences may be listed, resulting an unwieldy size of the infobox; an example of this can be found on the article I have been developing on illustrator John Blanche, where the effect of the 'influenced by' parameter is to push the box to intrude on the setion below and I find something of an 'ugly' result. Please consider. LSmok3 ^Talk 09:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would actually prefer to have both parameters removed. Like they did in Template:Infobox actor. This information should be in the actual article, not in an infobox. Garion96 (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is worth noting, whether every editor keeps to the rule or not, that any information listed under influenced by/influenced should appear in the article text anyway. Removing those parameters would be a more radical change. Personally I'm neutral on that subject. However, if they do remain, I am for the inclusion of a show/hide feature. LSmok3 ^Talk 11:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done I boldly made the change. Feel free to revert if this is a problem. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It should, but it almost never is. It should be a referenced section in the article and not a long list in the infobox. To have it in an infobox but to make it standard hidden makes it even stranger.I see in some articles editors, rightly, decided not to use this parameter. Could you imagine the extreme long list Andy Warhol for instance would have. For that matter, I checked some articles and couldn't find any which use the parameter. There are probably some but I don't think it would be missed much if removed. Garion96 (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

@Garion96: Well, as I said I'm neutral on the subject, but for the record, in any page I do myself I always make sure data in infoboxes or image captions appears in the main text and is cited. I agrre there are many exceptions to the rules, part of a more general issue on WIki at large, perhaps in some areas more than others.
@Plastikspork: thanks for implementing the suggestion. However, there is still a slight drag;for some reason the param title now sticks out to the left of the other fields. . . no ides why, but having checked Philosopher infobox it doesn't exhibit this problem. Could you get them to align properly? Thanks. LSmok3 ^Talk 19:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I made a somewhat drastic change to the template, which switched the backend to use {{infobox}}, which is what Philosopher uses. I checked it on a few major artist articles, and it appears to look almost exactly the same, but the labels are now left aligned, rather than right aligned. If this causes a problem, someone should revert the edit and we can work on a better solution. Hopefully this helps. Thanks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Image sizes

The unspecified image size images are completely out of whack, the box needs fixing, I reverted the last 2 edits and I think the problem is ok...Modernist (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Could you provide me with a testcase so I can debug the problem? Thanks again. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I first encountered the problem here: Diego Velázquez, although I added an image size there - however try this one: Carl Holty the image size is now blank. The problem occurs on images in the infobox where the image size is left blank...Modernist (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I believe I fixed the problem? If you try using "{{Infobox artist/sandbox" it appears the image renders fine? Thanks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Things look fine now, hopefully you've fixed the glitch, thanks...Modernist (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've made the change to the live template. Feel free to revert if you see any more problems and we can work on remaining issues. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)