Files up for deletion, speedy deletion, copyright dispute (September 2013)
These files have been nominated for deletion through various deletion processes, including being up for speedy deletion: (this list is not exhaustive, please check the various deletion processes for other files)
I'm a member of a Cornell University student project aimed at improving the quality of the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam page, currently classified as a C-Class Article. Over the next week or so, myself and two others (Wdevriescornell and eas295) will be researching and updating the page, and we'd like your help. We would love it if you guys critiqued our edits and discuss them with us on this talk page if you disagree or think we can improve somehow. Because we're still learning and we will be graded on our work, please don't just delete or redact our changes without giving us an explanation why you did on the museum's talk page. If you're interested in helping us out, please add the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam page to your Watchlist and feel free to post there or in my own personal talk page. We would really appreciate any help you can give!
Files up for deletion, speedy deletion, copyright dispute (October 2013)
These files have been nominated for deletion through various deletion processes, including being up for speedy deletion: (this list is not exhaustive, please check the various deletion processes for other files)
Can someone look over the Yuko Nii bio? It is substantially similar to her bio at the Williamsburgh Art History Center. I think someone connected to the center contributed to both, but the center's website is copyrighted, so contribution for work to her bio page there would make it WAH owned material, and not available for use on Wikipedia. -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I've twice removed long lists of prizewinners whose notability have not been established, except for winning a prize here. Further input welcome, if it's determined that I'm being overzealous. But my take is that a Wikipedia article probably isn't the place for such a listing. JNW (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
It would be useful to have a list of prizewinners at some point, but considering the list you removed was yet more stuff copied from the Prize's website, it's probably more important to establish the notability of the prize first. Prize-winners wouldn't need to be notable to be listed , but they'd definitely need to be verifiable. Sionk (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks like there are several WP:SPA users who are working to keep the list in its entirety. If it's copied from the website, it may constitute a copyright violation, no? JNW (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, though it depends a bit on context. Prose is easily copyvioed, lists, that's a different matter. But lists with text, yeah, that would be a copyvio. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello art lovers! The above submission at Afc is soon to be deleted as a stale draft. There's an article in the Spanish Wikipedia. There may be sources available to show the notability of this artist, but I don't know where to look. Can anyone help? There are many artist submissions among the 43,000 drafts that are eligible for G13 deletion here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/G13 rescue —Anne Delong (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem is unless they have a disambiguator there's little chance of knowing the subject area. If you find any others I'll take a look. Unfortunately the Rodolfo Visca (Spanish) article is as bad as the English draft. Hopefully Google.es will be my friend :) Sionk (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
The fact someone tried to forge and auction his works after his death shows his work has some significant value, but I can find little of substance about him online (not even an obit). He was taught by someone well known, but I doubt that's convincing enought reason for an article. Sionk (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that while we have an article on the Venice Biennale, articles on the individual Biennale editions are all missing. I noticed the same apparently holds for other convention events like ComicCon. An event like a Biennale edition is usually massively notable and very well capable of meeting WP:NEVENT, so I was wondering: do the articles not exist because of some other notability guideline I am unaware of, or simply because nobody ever bothered writing the individual articles? Thanks. --cyclopiaspeak!11:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
The latter, I expect. But considering it's been going since 1895 whoever took on that job would have quite a challenge! Some people might see it as unbalanced to have articles about the most recent occurrences, but not the earlier ones. Were there any particularly stand-out years that would warrant their own article, above any of the others? Sionk (talk) 12:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I honestly looked for an article on the 2013 Biennale I just visited, and I was just surprised to find none . I don't know if there are any editions more notable than others. I would like to write a few of them on the last recent ones. I understand it would have recentism issues, but better that than no articles at all, in my opinion. --cyclopiaspeak!12:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I was going to suggest a List of Venice Bienales, though looking again at the existing article I see there is already a lot of information about which countries exhibited in each year. Maybe it just needs untangling in a new easily readable list article (as suggested by one of the reader comments). List articles are a great way of navigating between articles and encouragement to create new ones about each event. If there are significant attributes of earlier events (which maybe don't justify a full article) they could also be mentioned on the list. Sionk (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I would start with sections on each event in the main article, then maybe breaking off into by decade/period articles if they get too long. I'm not very enthusiatic about lists, surely most countries come every time? Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
This article could do with some revision. Much of it is written in an art crit essay style, and many of the links are to online art auctions rather than anything like reliable sources. ωεαşεζǫįδ20:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Sources for ukiyo-e painting, as oppose to prints?
Does anyone know of a good source on ukiyo-e painting (rather than prints)? There appears to be a book, Ukiyoe Painting: Selected Problems (1960) by Harold Phillip Stern, but I can't get acces to it. I don't need anything in too great detail, just enough for an overview paragraph or two for the ukiyo-e article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
A biography of a living artist that could use further copy editing to remove the resume-like quality. There are interested accounts that appear to desire WP:OWNERSHIP regarding links, sources and content, so if others would like to keep an eye on this it would be appreciated. JNW (talk) 05:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Fair use warrior at work
A editor has been deleting images at Jeff Wall based on his own interpretation of fair use guidelines. It looks like this is his thing. The article could use one more eyes and I'm sure he's going to move onto other art articles now that he's stumbled onto Jeff Wall. freshacconci talk to me13:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually I think you'd better re-read it. After talking of the uses of galleries in articles, it only says: " ... 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..." and of course the article has such a link (the advice re moving galleries should be removed btw; Commons galleries, especially "indiscriminate" ones, are a menace - I'd delete the lot). Johnbod (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
It won't be clear until next month, but on Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Popular pages the highest viewed stub is now # 251 Indian art with 24761 views last month, or 825 per day (this is much longer than most stubs, but of deplorable quality for such a huge and important subject - please don't rerate until much better). I think there are only about 5 stubs left in the top 1000 listed. That is a great improvement on say 2 years ago, & quite an achievement for the project. I hope people look at this list when choosing what to edit - I certainly do. Does anyone know why Bone char is now #1 at 569920 per month, 18997 per day? It's suddenly appeared at the top in recent months. One of many mysteries. Baroque, start class at #24, 109945 m, 3664 d, is perhaps the most notable weak point left. Meanwhile, best wishes to everyone for the holidays and New Year! Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I imagine bone char is one of those Google autosuggest things, similar to how Facebook is a weekly top hit likely due to premature navigation on the Chrome omnibar. czar♔21:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Maybe. Looking for bone china it comes up, but at the bottom. It's also been suggested its about its use in refining sugar, which bothers many vegetarians. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
On art criticism
As part of my effort to clean up the article on art criticism, there is its merge with art critic to accomplish. As art critic includes a list of notable art critics I thought it a good move, as detailed on the discussion linked above, to create a pertinent, suitably referenced list. 42 KB later, after a long literature trawl, I find out there is a list of critics...
Yeah I noticed Art criticism may need some sections for visual art other than painting. I'll probably leave that for others though.
I'm thinking I could take advantage of the existence of that list page and, since critics seem to dabble so much between modes of artistic expression and other types of discourse, do it as a table not unlike this one. Though I'll probably just try and reference the names already listed. As for what I have collected so far I guess I'll save it for further development later on. --Dracontes (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
There are two articles Mexican muralism, which appears to be very well written and tightly connects the Mexican Revolution with the resulting, dramatic changes in art.
There's another article Mexican Renaissance, which has been in the Special:NewPagesFeed since it was created last month (Nov 2013). It is tagged as essay-like and needing to be rewritten.
It seems that these two topics overlap, but I'm not sure to what extent. Are they essentially the same movement? Or is there a distinction between the two that would require two articles?
The two articles should definitely be merged. I wrote the muralism one but there is good info on the Renaissance one as well. I had never heard of the term "Mexican Renaissance" The most common alternative term Ive heard for the art movement of the first half of the 20th century is the Mexican School of Painting. Its now on my to do list. If no one else gets to it first, Ill do it.Thelmadatter (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Great! I had a hard time finding a definition of Mexican Renaissance, but there's something from Jean Charlot: "By Renaissance I speak mainly of the mural period of the 1920s and of the muralists, and of course, the Revolution is the Revolution of 1910, mostly military and a rather bloody affair." This seems to infer that he coined the phrase, or at least had his own definition for it. See here.
I'm happy to start out by doing a comparison and seeing where there's overlap and where there's new information. If you could look at the new information to see how to weave it into the Mexican muralism article, that would be great!
Rather than impugning one another's intelligence and ancestry over the number of images in the Monet article...
....let me suggest this chestnut that I gave up on years ago: a self-published Russian art historian who constructed a garden of articles on artists he's written about and whose work he represents, a mixture of scholarship and conflict of interest. Many of the articles feature large image galleries that represent individual works not mentioned in the articles. For example ARKA Gallery (Saint Petersburg), 1960 in fine arts of the Soviet Union, 1964 in fine arts of the Soviet Union (which, incidentally, are not really about art in the Soviet Union, but only the Leningrad painters of the author's interest), and Quince and Teapot (painting), Still life with Pussy-Willows (painting) which, like any number of individual works, take as their main sources publications by the author, who cites himself in the articles, and often, as in Horsewoman (painting) links to his own website [2]. There are many such COI concerns; mine was always that the author, Leningradartist, has used Wikipedia to promote artists and works he represents. JNW (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I knew you would; I think we both took a shot at this when it was still pretty fresh. If memory serves I went to the COI noticeboard and didn't get much traction. Another editor whose name I forget was equally concerned, and even began sifting through dozens of articles and made a separate worksheet page to chronicle their progress, but LA was two things: knowledgeable in his field and persistent. JNW (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
He liked to add these obscure Russian painters into all kinds of art history articles. At the moment I'm simply trying to protect one Yves Tanguy painting to represent Surrealism - and the image hunters want it outta here [3]...Modernist (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
It's a notable painting. Would the rationale for keeping the image be helped if we had an article about it? JNW (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
If there was an article about the painting there would be a very clear rationale to use the non-free image in the article about the painting. I think you can only have a rationale to use the painting to illustrate the Yves Tanguy article if that article discusses the painting. Otherwise it's just there for decoration. Sionk (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sensing a bit of us vs. them that doesn't feel particularly warranted. The non-free image use policy is pretty clear in that WP wants to use free images wherever possible, so a decent no-name image that depicts surrealist ideas is preferable to a Tanguy in all cases except where the merit of the specific Tanguy painting is in the prose. Think of non-free images like a rare exception to a policy that otherwise demands free-use images—there has to be a really good reason (and if one exists, it should be made in the non-free use rationale section of its File page). czar♔04:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems like you are assuming that editorial discretion doesn't exist. What is a "decent no-name image"? We edit the articles we like. There is nothing wrong with that. We are allowed to use non-free images under certain circumstances. Visual arts articles are about visual entities. They are not always substitutable. Bus stop (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
To answer your question: commons:Category:Surrealism, e.g., File:Dialettica illusoria.JPG—demonstrates "surrealism" but isn't a copyrighted Tanguy. Depends on the purpose. If a Tanguy is necessary, one should be able to say so. I never said discussion wasn't a part of this process, but I think the argument of those asking to remove non-free images is fairly straightforward. czar♔06:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
When it comes to using non-free images, there is no editorial discretion, as that policy starts from the Foundation. There are some grey zones, but it is not as broad as en.wiki-only policies which WP:IAR can readily apply. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
In light of the increase in GLAM projects internationally, I'd like to start a new WikiProject, WP:Exhibitions to help coordinate activities around major museum and gallery exhibitions. If you are interested in the project, please contact me here or on my talk page. I'm hoping to establish guidelines for creating, editing, and tagging articles on major exhibitions and to begin improving articles in this area of Wikipedia. OR drohowa (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Want to add the request "The Reader (painting)"
Hi, I'd like to add the article for The Reader (painting) listed on Requested articles. However, I need a clarification. My findings show that there are two Impressionist-age paintings that are referred to as "The Reader":
Springtime or Woman Reading - the article already exists, so should the request be satisfied with a redirect?
Claude Monet The Reader (1874) by Pierre Auguste Renoir (see external link to wikipaintings.org) - this painting does not exist in the WIkiverse and I'd like to add it. However, it's a portrait of Monet by Renoir, so your request page would be in error to say it's by Monet.
The above old Afc submission was declined by an editor who has since been banned. It will soon be deleted as a stale draft. The references are not on line, and I know little about the art world, so I can't judge their usefulness or what they may contain. Is this a notable artist, and should the article be rescued from deletion? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The image hunters have begun an all out assault on important contemporary art - it is under way - [5]; [6]; [7]; [8]; [9] - Alex Katz, Magritte, Warhol, Miro, Hockney, Wesselmann, Dine, Dali, for starters...Modernist (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Hardly. The discussions are simply questioning whether these non-free images should be freely used. There are places where their use is quite acceptable (and other places where there is a potential abuse of copyright). Sionk (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
We have one nonfree example of Dine and as there is no long career here with multiple styles, only one example with EL to outside gallery sources works for all. --MASEM (t) 01:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
It is? Where's the sourcing for that? And not every painting by an artist can be their most important. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
He works in Series - Bathrobes, Hearts, Tools, various other images; in Dine's case here - one robe suffices as representation of those groups of work...Modernist (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
These should have been added when the images were added to start; the burden for meeting nonfree requirements is on those that want to keep them. There is no "attack" going on, simply review of image with multiple questionable uses. --MASEM (t) 02:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Since this isn't the first time this topic has come up, I just want to say that I back Masem's reading of this situation. Non-free images are only supposed to be used in extenuating circumstances on WP, which means that every non-free image needs to be justified before it's added. Also if something is deleted, it's not like it'll never come back again. And furthermore, the truly necessary images are accepted as needed by consensus across multiple editors experienced in the rules, so there's no use in worrying that a lone editor with a vengeance can single-handedly and unilaterally destroy WP. czar♔02:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Czar—you say "every non-free image needs to be justified before it's added". Indeed every image is justified. Its justification need not involve concocted language. We are talking about contexts in which the image's presence has ample justification. These are often paragraphs or entire articles on art movements. Images of works of art serve obvious purposes under such circumstances, apprising readers of what to look out for in the way of the visual characteristics typifying those art movements. You say that "the truly necessary images are accepted as needed by consensus across multiple editors". I think a good many editors familiar with the visual arts are telling you that you and others are gutting Wikipedia's coverage of the visual arts by depriving articles of images of works of art. I can read policy language just as well as you can. We are arguing over outlandish interpretations of policy that are not justified in the context of the visual arts. Policy for instance does not dictate that we must concoct unnecessary language in the text of articles in order to justify images. Justification can exist when an image is of a work of art that is an example of a type of artwork being addressed in an article or a section of an article. We need not find sources relating to specifically that artwork. And no, that would not necessarily be original research. In such a case a WP:Consensus of knowledgeable editors can reach the conclusion that the obviously representative work of art supplements the text in the article. There need not be a direct tie-in between that particular artwork and the art movement or other style-issue being addressed in the text of the article. Bus stop (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I've been concerned to see Modernist's work being a focus of attention so regularly. Given that's he working in this area, he's going to be using images more than other editors, but to have them questioned so often by people not otherwise involved in the articles must be discouraging.
I was wondering whether someone could be nominated to act as a go-between, or mediator, between Modernist and the editors concerned with non-free content (mostly Masem, Stefan and Werieth). It should be someone who is familiar with image policies, but who also sees things from the point of view of writers, so that consensus positions can be found more easily. If Masem and the others have concerns about an image on an article Modernist has written, they could approach this third party instead of approaching Modernist directly or starting discussions on their own. The third party could keep a list of their concerns, and approach Modernist with the list every so often, so that the frequency of the interventions is reduced. Would something like this work?
I'm certainly willing to help out in any way I can. I understand Wikipedia's non-free content policy quite well, and I also have tremendous respect for quality content creators such as Modernist. When one user just wants an article to be illustrated as well as possible, regardless of policy, and another user just wants policy to be followed to the letter, regardless of what happens to the article, there is bound to be conflict. So I'd like to help reduce that conflict, if possible. I'm not sure how I could help, though, in practice. For instance, if a user believes that including File:MagrittePipe.jpg in Surrealism, History of painting, and Western painting violates our non-free content policy, what would he or she do, under this proposal? – Quadell(talk)19:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
It is hard for me to even understand what is underfoot. I know that I have a certain understanding of styles in visual art. But I don't know if others have even rudimentary sensibilities in this area. I am often stumped for words by misguided arguments put forth by a certain group of editors. I will hear editors saying that certain images are not justified because free "substitutes" are available. Yes, and we can drink water out of the cat's bowl too. Or I will hear editors saying that we already have examples of surrealism so why do we need another example of surrealism? Yes, there is a common thread running through different surrealist works, but there are also different precincts within surrealism and we may want to represent them by image. An art style is known to have subcomponents. Editorial discretion can help here, to build good quality articles. Instead we have a situation in which Modernist's efforts are being squelched. The images of works of art, while mere reproductions, still serve a crucial purpose. It would be hard to overstate the educational value of the images that we are discussing. It is a mistake to think that the images merely supplement the text. I think a good editor in the visual arts aims to provide images and text that work together to familiarize the reader with areas of knowledge in art. Bus stop (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Quadell, it would be great if you could help. I didn't think this through in detail before suggesting it, so this is just a draft idea.
I'm thinking that, where Masem, Stefan or Werieth (or any other editor who focuses on non-free content) believe that a non-free visual-arts image is being used wrongly, they would contact you instead of starting a discussion on Wikipedia:Non-free content review or on article talk, and instead of arriving at the articles to remove the images. (I'm not including urgent removals of clear copyright violations in this idea.)
You would keep a list of their concerns, then every three or six months (say) you would list those images all at once on the non-free content review page for discussion. You would mediate the discussion to make sure the arts editors don't feel under too much pressure, and to make sure that a reasonable interpretation of the non-free policy and guideline is applied. Perhaps you would also close the discussion, or find a neutral admin to do it. As I say this is just a very rough idea at the moment. But the point is you would act as a kind of "visual-arts images mediator," if you're willing – a buffer between the arts editors and the editors who focus on non-free issues. SlimVirgin(talk)20:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The larger issue starts from how Modernist et al have decided to organize the topic of painting which ends up incompatible with NFC at the end of the day. They have pushed the idea of requiring galleries of images as examples in History of Painting and the subtopics of the various schools band geographic and historical timeframes. For free images this isn't a problem (normally), but when on does the same with NFC, which requires much more careful use, this approach can't work. (A separate issue is that large inclusions of free images also make pages less accessible and overloasdf bandwidth). The more proper approach would avoid galleries in favor of commons links, and the careful selection of inline images to highlight an article at a high outline level. Take for example on History of Painting and Western Painting one only needs one Surrealism image to show an example in the short summary section; In Surrealism, about ten well selected examples (source as strong examples of the medium) are sufficient for in lines, and then more specific examples can come from links to specific artist and painting articles. These will mostly be nonfrees in this case, but same principle applies to other schools as well. As Wikipedia is not an art appreciation tectbok, these pages shouldnt flood articles with dozens of images without guiding the reader to understand why they are included. This achieves the right balance of showcase art but meeting size and access ability issued and reducing the issues of non free conflicts. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I think rather than discussing the particular issues here, it would be better to find a structure for a way forward, so that positions in the middle can be explored. The idea of having a knowledgeable mediator seems like one that could work. SlimVirgin(talk)20:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I disagree, only that getting someone to mitigate nonfree deletions is only a short term solution though a good step nevertheless. Again, understanding the broad reason of why there repeatedly issues and how these need to be resolved in general as the first step is needed. --MASEM (t) 21:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Masem—you say "As Wikipedia is not an art appreciation tectbok, these pages shouldnt flood articles with dozens of images without guiding the reader to understand why they are included." Wikipedia is not an art appreciation textbook. Our inclusion of images is to apprise the reader of representative examples of a general category of artwork. Yes, in some instances an individual artwork is referenced. In such an instance a source can be expected. And wording in the article directly relating to the artwork depicted can be expected. In other instances the connection can be looser. An image may not be invalidated for inclusion if sourcing and wording in the article does not specifically mention that exact artwork. Bus stop (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
A small number of examples, sourced to be representative examples, is fine, like no more than 10 for an article like surrealism which are all likely to be non free. The key is to that limited number, not as many as currently in use. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose The problem is that some people do not understand how WP:NFC and WP:NFCC work. For example:
WP:NFCC#1: If free images from the same school exist, then those should be used instead.
WP:NFCC#3a: You shouldn't add loads of non-free files to the same page; only a small number is needed.
- Once again - your interpretation is incorrect. Each image represents a different and separate facet of the information being conveyed by the works of art. We cannot have a Picasso representing Matisse because it saves space...Modernist (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:NFG: Non-free images may not be used in a gallery.
- As I pointed out several years ago - this is an antiquated interpretation of rules - the galleries are simply the most efficient way to present the works of art...Modernist (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:NFCI§7: If an inclusion criterion requires critical discussion, then critical discussion is required.
WP:NFC#UUI §6: If a painting has its own article, what you should do is to link to the article instead of including the painting in the second article.
Thinking about this one - it seems utterly archaic to me but I'll consider the point; although there must be exceptions...Modernist (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
NFG is not archaic. It is there to avoid using a format which is layout-wide easy to include non free but without providing cointextual significance for inclusion required by NFCC#8. (Also side comment it is generally not best to insert your comments within another's like the above) --MASEM (t) 03:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
That is a matter of opinion and not necessarily cut in stone; there are plenty of cointextual inclusion accompaniments in many articles...Modernist (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
There are very limited cases where NFCC#8 can be met without direct sourcing but they are very exceptional. I would particularly argue this cannot apply to how NFG is applied to the painting heirarcy of articles, since we're not talking about the deletion of famous art that is the subject of discussion on at least one article (artwork itself or artist), but removal of excessive usage to favor and point editors to where there is clear contextual significance. A case I would consider where contextual sighnificant can be met without direct sourcing fort a work of art is if the work is not notable but the artist is and, barring any free exactles, can used to demonstrate the artist's style alongside discussion of the artiusdt's stule . --MASEM (t) 03:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
As concerns failure to meet WP:NFCC#8 requirements I have not seen any instance of this as concerns images of works of art in visual arts articles. I conclude this based on a literal (non-interpretive) reading of the language at WP:NFCC#8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Masem and others are interpreting WP:NFCC#8 to mean that text has to be found in article space directly referring to that artwork being depicted. In the context of visual arts articles it can be very hard to abide by such an interpretation of WP:NFCC#8. The arguments between editors immersed in the visual arts and editors committed to defending non-free image-use policy can get very unproductive. For instance a work of art depicted can ideally represent some "style", using the term loosely, but the charge against its usage can be articulated as WP:OR. The situation can be ridiculous because you may not be able to find a source stating the obvious (that it is of a certain style or sub-style). And furthermore there may be little or no reason to speak about this in the text of the article. If for instance you are showing the range of "styles" (using the term loosely) that might fall under the heading "surrealism", a good editor is going to exercise good editorial discretion to minimize the number of images used, but to find good representatives of each basic type. This is not necessarily WP:OR. Familiarity with the visual arts would suggest that certain areas of the visual arts be represented by example images. The images are important. There is always "contextual significance" between the general topic being written about and the images nearby. Captions under images can recapitulate wording found in the body of an article, if the connection is not clear or needs reinforcement. The way a reader approaches an article in the visual arts can be slightly different than the approach prevailing at other articles, in that the reader is going to "cross-reference" that which is read both in the body of the article and in the captions under images, with their impressions of the images. The reader experiences the images in the context of the text found in the article, and the reader experiences text in the context of corresponding imagery. Bus stop (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
"Contextual significance" implies discussion in the text, and sourcing is required to avoid OR. The rest of en.wiki understands this. As for images to show examples for the various schools/geographic art styles, it should not be the case of trying to shoehorn in an image and attempting to claim that it is an example without sourcing even if obvious; it should be instead finding sources that give examples of the school or region and using a limited number of those examples with that sourcing and as inline images. This allows the reader to understand why these images are selected, instead of piling them into galleries and making them try to guess significance. --MASEM (t) 05:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I have lately been reviewing the images in History of painting and have slowly been trying to make it compatible with WP:NFCC. It is only natural that the editors of that article turn up whenever an image in that article is being discussed. If you are requiring that an image should be discussed before it can be discussed, then this would just create extra bureaucracy and slow down everything without any real benefit. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Stefan, I see the problem as twofold. First, as you say, lots of editors don't understand the non-free guideline. But it's also true that lots of editors don't know anything about art. So that's one source of the conflict right there: one group is knowledgeable about X, the other about Y. A second source of the conflict is that quite an extreme interpretation of the guideline is often used (for example, you say above that non-free images may not be used in galleries, but the guideline you link to (WP:NFG) does not say that).
The suggestion of a mediator aims to place someone in a position to balance both sides, in terms of interpreting the guideline and of balancing the aims of each group. SlimVirgin(talk)22:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The limited cases in the past where non free may be used in galleries is typically where there is sourced discussion on a series of images that include nonfree as part of a necessary progression. The use of galleries in, say History of Painting, does not fit that. And a reminder, NFCC is policy mandated by the Foundation that requires us to minimize nonfree use, so while there is a balance between this and educational use, the balance needs to favor the Foundations requirement. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
We might want to keep in mind that, unlike guidelines for endashes and date formats, non-free imagery has a legal aspect to it that beyond what consensus can decide. Following the guidelines here is not mere bureaucracy. Any "compromise" that is reached has to be clearly within the limits of the law. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
There are no legal issues with the kinds of images being discussed here; as I said above, urgent removals of clear copyright violations wouldn't be covered by this. SlimVirgin(talk)22:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Surely there must be legal issues surrounding copyrighted images? Isn't that why Wikipedia has a Non-free Content policy? Sionk (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
There are legal issues that the Foundations Resolution and NFC are meant to address by providing a level of usage stricter than US fair use provisions permits to protect the work. But its not a legal issue like BLP or copyvio policy is meant to address. However it is a policy to make use less nonfree media to meet the free content mission and make our work more easily distributed about the world. --MASEM (t) 01:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Re: the mediation idea—as far as I can tell, the linked dialogues at the start of this thread are all being mediated just fine through the normal channels. If anything, I think there is a disagreement between NFCC reviewer consensus and article-level local consensus over NFCI#7 (hence the concerns about misunderstanding NFCC rules). So some think it's enough to use a copyrighted image (say, in Western painting) because they feel it improves the text, but NFCC (esp. #8) is much more strict in requiring its direct relevance both in the prose/caption and in its non-free use rationale. As I understand it, WP is not like an art history textbook or print encyclopedia in that it doesn't secure licensing to use as many images as it wants for the best-illustrated article, but it suffices with free use and the very occasional fair use illustration only when there is (inescapably) no other option (cf. first line of NFCC#Policy). czar♔01:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
@Sionk - common sense and the US constitution says these images are ok to be used. Should anyone who owns a copyright have an objection (as has happened in the past by the way) the image or images would be immediately removed...Modernist (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
That's wrong. Copyright is a lkaw but not one in the constitution. And that law states the only legal reuse of a work is defined by the copyright holder. However, there exists the concept if a fair use defense, in which one can use a portion or reduced version of a work for limited purposes without infringing on the rights of the copyright owner. But this'd defence is a series of abstract, subjective tests that are determine case by case. Our NFC policy aims to assure our usage of non free should absolutely meet fair use defense by using even stricter requirements than fair use. Hence why it is to a degree a legal issue. (And please follow proper threading commentary for discussions to avoid breasking up threads.) --MASEM (t) 13:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I will begin working on a draft statement of principles, and I'll link to them when I've finished, in a few days. I'll invite all interested parties to sign onto them if they wish. Then we can go from there. Until then, I'd like to request that we tone down the rhetoric and try to disagree respectfully. – Quadell(talk)15:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm going to have to back out of helping mediate this. Real life issues have come up, and I'm probably going to have to talk a Wikibreak for about a month starting soon, only jumping on occasionally to close some remaining open issues. I do hope that the issue can be resolved civilly, and without accusations of bad faith. I'm quite sure that Modernist only wants art-related articles to be as good as they can be, and that Masem only wants our policies to be followed consistently, and both are deserving of our gratitude for these efforts. I hope Modernist and the image policy wonks can effectively work together to determine how best to interpret NFCC#3 and #8 (and others), but it will take some work. Modernist will need to be willing to submit to policy and precedent where they are clear, and refrain from accusations; and some of the more hot-headed policy wonks will need to be willing to back out and let cooler heads take over. Otherwise, I fear this issue will continue to escalate and generate bad feelings all around. All the best, – Quadell(talk)17:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Traditionally described as Venetian, now being assigned an Albanian heritage. Any insights welcome. JNW (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
This appears to be a source for the recent changes [11], though it's not clear to me that it supports the claims that he was part of an Albanian diaspora. JNW (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't! Other sources, and our article, say he was of an Istrian background - this is next to Venice and right the other end of the Adriatic coast from Albania. Istria was part of Italy as far as the Roman and the Middle Ages were concerned, though now divided between Italy, Slovenia and Croatia. Capodistria, where he may have been born, was mainly Italian until the last century, when it (rather unluckily frankly) became Slovenian after WW2, to give them a decent port on "the country's 47-kilometre (29-mile) coastline". It's still "approximately five kilometres (3.1 miles) from its border with Italy." Nothing to do with Albania, & he has produced no sources that say differently. Johnbod (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. As soon as you reverted the edits in question another account restored some of the content. I've reverted those edits, and if this continues I'll be inclined to request page protection. JNW (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
See [[12]] with Commons links - I think all the EU artist's should now be out of artist's copyright, and unpublished but not published work by the Americans:
Camille Claudel - French sculptress (so photos may have copyright)
Beatrix Potter - illustrated her classic children's books
Please add. That is partly from searching this pretty full list (which I think is Wikipedia-derived) on "artist" up to "E" on their first-name-order list.
Here's a CatScan intersection between "Artists" (depth 5) and "1943 deaths", for those interested. List's a bit longer. czar♔14:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
If anyone has in interest or inclination, there are several articles about women artists that were tagged for notability and we've not been able to find enough information to prove notability. If you wouldn't mind weighing in with your opinions, that would be wonderful - the discussions have been light on these few for a bit.
Freedom from Want (painting), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I have been working on the Allison Lefcort article and worked with sources I could find to create inline citations and round out the article with that information. There are some sources that I didn't feel sure about using (see Talk:Allison Lefcort#Sources) and there's some content that I couldn't find sources for that I moved to the talk page (i.e., potential original research and/or COI issue), but some of it seems like it would be published somewhere (was hired to do a series of portraits of Grammy winners, etc.) - See Talk:Allison Lefcort#Need sources and I'm wondering if I'm missing sources for artists.
You seem to have done a pretty thorough job. Most of the (as yet) unsourced info is non-controversial/believable. Though I'd tend to remove the 2002 quote, it sounds like a typical bit of cherry-picking from a sole review! Sionk (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I don't know if I missed this earlier or there was a quote from 2002 that I removed. In any event, I just saw your comment and found a 2003 quote that seems like it might fit the scenario you mentioned, thanks Sionk!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Does my take on the three articles make sense? Before I go to far afield, it would be great to ensure I'm headed in the right direction. If you have the opportunity to look at this, that would be great!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The reason why I ask the question is because 1) it seems pretty clear why there needs to be a separate feminist art movement article (i.e., to address the global perspective), but one could contend that "feminist art" should go in the "feminist art movement" article. On the other hand, there is so much that I'm finding out about how women influenced postmodern art, or had their own take on post modern art... that discussion about the actual works warrants a separate article. That's really the question: should feminist art have it's own article to cover works of art - and the movement article to discuss ways in which it sought to improve women's representation and opportunities... and the organizations that were established for those efforts?--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Is there someone that I could partner with that has a subscription to get copies of selected biographies? Or, is there a program like the one for Wikipedia:HighBeam to get access? Thanks!--16:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaroleHenson (talk • contribs)
You can request access to new databases at the bottom of Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Partners (and I imagine messaging the coordinators would expedite the request). Libraries will likely be your best bet, and you can find the ones that hold these volumes through Worldcat:
I'll have access to Falk (which is a little more accessible than the others) the week of the 13th, if I can help. I'll look into getting my hands on the others. czar♔16:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson: There was a little in Davenport. Lynch doesn't show in any of the usual references other than in Who Was Who. I'll elaborate on the article's talk page. czar♔19:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I found this out when I began to work on subcategories, by nationality, of the portrait painters category - and have started a conversation at Category talk:Portrait painters. Should the 2 categories be merged... meaning only have one main category: Portrait artist or Portrait painter, with subcategories by nationality under the main category? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Where are the regs? As you guys know, a lot of my research is pretty good, but my writing almost always needs fine tuning and usually, you guys know a few things that should be added. The review has been open a week and it is getting support. I hope it does not pass without the usual great final adjustments from you guys. I will name a few people who have been helpful in past nominations and who I hope will take a look: Ceoil, Modernist and Johnbod.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, PatHadley (talk) here. I'm the Wikipedian-in-Residence at York Museums Trust (Project pages). I've been uploading images of Studio pottery from the W.A. Ismay Collection. The whole set can be found here: Category:W.A. Ismay Studio Ceramic Collection (11 out of 53 so far), I hope that they're useful for various articles! Unfortunately Ismay himself is lacking an article. It would be great if one could be started? You can find out something about Ismay and the collection on the Google Cultural Institute (written by YMT's curator). Also, if there are any ways in which we could help you achieve your goals for coverage of artists on Wikipedia that would be great. You can contact me with any queries. Look forward to working with you! PatHadley (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Anna Berndtson
Hello WikiProject Visual arts! May I please request some eyes at Anna Berndtson? I believe there is a conflict of interest situation going on over there, and someone (perhaps the artist herself) is presenting a very specific portrait of this artist. Though I have fixed some of it, I've noticed the reintroduction of original research and I was hoping to get other community members to help offer perspective and reason. I don't think the subject's notability has been properly established, so that's a concern as well. Thanks all! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, art experts! The above old abandoned Afc submission is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable artist, and should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
When choosing external links for bio articles, I think as many artworks as possible should be a few clicks away. Often a combination of known museums is a good choice, as they have both high quality images and intelligent databases. See what links I added at Jean Duvet, in whose case, Artcyclopedia had virtually all links broken, and Web Gallery of Art, only two works. Now I think this can be standardized by creating a template to link to the different museums databases, even thogh some links are technically to search pages. It could be collapsed like a navigation template, titled e.g. "Jean Duvet major collections". The closest thing in use now afaik is the album reviews and ratings thing. What do you think? trespassers william (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Page Jean Dunand (en)
Hello,
After several warnings of Pablo029 (vandalism, no neutrality), the user ARTUNAD was recently blocked 24h on French Wikipedia for R3R violation and multiple passages strength. This is a repeat offender.
These warnings relate to François-Louis Schmied, Jean Dunand, Jean Goulden and Gustave Miklos pages. ARTUNAD is a great admirer of Gustave Miklos (worshiper would be more accurate) and considers that Miklos designed most of geometric patterns for Schmied, Dunand, and Goulden. For ARTUNAD, Schmied, Dunand and Goulden are not "artists", only Miklos is an artist. More serious, he says Dunand, Goulden and Schmied exploited Miklos, that they are conspirators, and he despises them. I'm not at all agree with him, Art Deco experts either (eg Félix Marcilhac). Miklos was a friend of Schmied and Dunand, he sold them its draft designs (like Lambert-Rucki), but Dunand, Goulden and Schmied were also artists, who can design themselves their own geometric (or not) designs.
ARTUNAD's main source is the book of Mrs Danuta Cichocka Gustave Miklos. Un Grand oeuvre caché, published in September 2013 by her own publishing house (so without no review committee). This book was rejected as source on French Wikipedia because it has no reputation (it is just allowed to appear in the bibliography section).
You may also notice that A(r)TUNAD = DANUTA backwards.
To monitor ARTUNAD's changes on French Wikipédia, Heddryin put the R3R blindfold on Miklos page, and Pablo029 put the R3R blindfold on Goulden, Dunand and Schmied pages (and he also reversed ARTUNAD's last changes). Now, ARTUNAD can not make forced passage on French WP (otherwise it may be blocked longer), but i see that, since 28 January 2014, it changes the Jean Dunand page on English WP : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jean_Dunand&action=history
For example, he removed the word "artist" in the introduction. ARTUNAD said "Last discovery proved" because Danuta Cichocka said it was she who discovered the Miklos collaboration for Schmied and Dunand. This is false, Félix Marcilhac already speaks in 1991, in his book Jean Dunand: His Life and Work (London, Thames and Hudson), and in an other book in 2010 : Gustave Miklos, Joseph Csaky (Kalman Maklary Fine Arts). Félix Marcilhac also said Miklos has provided much less drawings for Dunand than for Schmied. ARTUNAD said Dunand has developed none of its geometric patterns, but this is a mistake.
In externals links, ARTUNAD put http://www.gustave-mikos-monograph.com : this is the site where everybody can order Danuta Cichocka's book (225 euros). This link and the other external link (http://fr.cyclopaedia.net/wiki/Gustave-Miklos) allow ARTUNAD to promote Mrs. Cichocka's book, but they contribute nothing to Jean Dunand and I do not see what they do in his page.
Modified pages by ARTUNAD end up being unbalanced because it puts Miklos everywhere... In french, we say ARTUNAD mikloïse Wikipédia articles.
Could you help me and remove non-neutral and inaccurate ARTUNAD changes on Jean Dunand page (otherwise it will increase Miklos on this page to try to show that Dunand was incompetent and dishonest)?
OK, waiting for your opinion, I balanced the content of the page (Miklos was too much named), and removed two links which bring nothing on Dunand. I also added some information, a reference, and add a book (Dunand monograph) in the bibliography section.
Hello art experts. This old Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. I don't know much about art and design sources. Are these reliable, and should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
It will be interesting to get reactions from others, but here's my initial take:
Sources like magazines, newspapers and books are great - so the Wall Street Journal article is a good source.
It's best to not use biographies on sites that have a sales function, like the Flos site.
For online magazines or similar sites, I check to see if there is an editorial function. On The Invisible Dog Art Center site submissions can be accepted or denied, so there's some sort of editorial function, but I'm not familiar with the source.
I would look for more sources from magazines, newspapers and books.
It's also good to ensure that what text you're citing actually is at the cited source. For instance, the source for Nuance II just covered the the Louise Blouin Foundation part of the sentence.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to look at this. I am working through a backlog of thousands of old abandoned submissions, so I appreciate any help. I have three options: (1) nominate the article for deletion as a stale draft, if the subject is non-notable; (2) move the article to mainspace if it is properly referenced and non-promotional; and (3) postpone deletion for six months, if the subject is likely notable, to give time to find additional sources. From your comments, it sounds as though you think more reliable sources are needed, so I will go with #3. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
That's good, although books he's written himself can't be used to show notability, maybe there are some book reviews by independent reviewers to be found. I see that you have made some improvements to the article. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Invitation to User Study
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC).
An article within the scope of this project, Claire Oboussier, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sionk (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Popular pages tool update
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I've begun to cut lots of unsourced and poorly sourced commentary, much of it along the lines of 'we need more art education.' Also added a little about the apprentice/workshop system of the early Renaissance. If anyone would like to take further aim at this, it's ripe for improvement. Cheers, JNW (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm surprised there's absolutely no mention about France (Ecole des Beaux Arts etc.), centre of the Western art world until the beginning of the 20th century! Sionk (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. If you have any references, a passage or two on Poussin's influence and subsequent development of academies in Paris would be great. JNW (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, art experts. This old Afc submission has references, but they are not on line. Is this a notable person in the art business, and should the article be kept?—Anne Delong (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Might be notable, though the proposed article is so promotional in tone it will never fly. Would need a rewrite to trim press release prose and lists of artists represented. JNW (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I've scrubbed it further. No need for an unsourced listing of artists, nor commercial exhibitions, with the cites referring to newspaper reviews. There still needs to be more in the way of reliable sources to support his individual notability. JNW (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
. I don't know if there are any editions more notable than others. I would like to write a few of them on the last recent ones. I understand it would have recentism issues, but better that than no articles at all, in my opinion. --cyclopiaspeak! 12:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
Or I will hear editors saying that we already have examples of surrealism so why do we need another example of surrealism? Yes, there is a common thread running through different surrealist works, but there are also different precincts within surrealism and we may want to represent them by image. An art style is known to have subcomponents. Editorial discretion can help here, to build good quality articles. Instead we have a situation in which Modernist's efforts are being squelched. The images of works of art, while mere reproductions, still serve a crucial purpose. It would be hard to overstate the educational value of the images that we are discussing. It is a mistake to think that the images merely supplement the text. I think a good editor in the visual arts aims to provide images and text that work together to familiarize the reader with areas of knowledge in art. Bus stop (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Mama,_Papa_is_Wounded!.jpg&diff=586562045&oldid=586561186){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Alex_Katz.27s_1970_painting_of_his_son_.27Vincent_with_Open_Mouth.27.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:MagrittePipe.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_December_28#File:.27The_Robe_Following_Her_-_4.27.2C_oil_on_canvas_painting_by_Jim_Dine.2C_1984-5.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Campbells_Soup_Cans_MOMA.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:.27Still_Life_-20.27.2C_mixed_media_work_by_--Tom_Wesselmann--.2C_1962.2C_--Albright-Knox_Gallery--.jpg){kind=link}
