Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21

A link to a DAB page

In John Pairman, Bridge over the River Almond links to the DAB page River Almond. Both rivers look plausible. This problem was first spotted in October 2015. Can anyone help solve this puzzle? Narky Blert (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It might be the Almond Aqueduct over the River Almond, Lothian, compare the painting and the aquaduct. The proportions and the shape of the piers aren't exact, but the piers in the painting are proud of the bridge body and the top of the bridge is perfectly horizontal. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata infoboxes

How do the members of this Wikiproject feel about {{infobox artwork/wikidata}} and its friends? They have been proliferating over the last year or two - nearly 300 uses for the artwork one,[1] whereas the non-wikidata version is used about 7,000 times.[2]

Do we like importing potentially unverified and possibly incorrect information without any additional review? Do we like the "data" it choses to present, and how it presents it? Are we willing to let it slowly creep in, article by artice, until it becomes the default? 213.205.240.214 (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. It makes sense to store some data where it can be re-used by other projects. Vexations (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Very dubious, if only because the accuracy of WD is so very low. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Opposed to them, both the specific implementation—which adds lines like "Owner=Sally Bequester" which are nonsense; adds inconsistent and poorly worded information about medium; sometimes adds a third dimension to paintings because, hey, depth has been bot-populated on Wikidata; and so on. I'm also opposed to them in principle as detailed here. (I've never understood the "other projects" argument. That's for them--one can only analyze wikidata infoboxes used on English Wikipedia in the context of what they do for the English Wikipedia. Outriggr (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove them forthwith or before. Not under Wikipedia's jurisdiction or control, the existing Wikipedia images may be removed from the infobox because of differing policies, and lots of other things too obvious to go on about. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • On some pages they seem to work well, on others they would make the infobox worse. I've been trying the code on various pages and see misspellings (Memory, the Heart), the wrong image (Guernica), etc. Kinks in the system, and, again, uneditable by strictly-Wikipedia editors. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Randy Kryn Would it be correct to infer form the above that you also advocating that no images should be hosted on Commons either, as "not strictly en-wiki"? Vexations (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Of course not, so please correct me if I'm wrong about Wikidata. Does it go under the fair use restrictions of Commons images, which I'm assuming, or of images uploaded on Wikipedia, which can often be used in cases where Commons images cannot. I'm not an expert on the policy of each. Thanks. And in case of commons, editors have to go get the image, where in Wikidata infoboxes one template gives all of the information for a subject which, as I point out above, is often incorrect. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Randy Kryn I'm just trying to understand the arguments against the use of Wikidata. One objection you raised was "Not under Wikipedia's jurisdiction or control", and the same is true for Commons, so I'm a bit confused about why you would think your objection applies to one but not the other. --Vexations (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Commons hosts images which are easily obtainable without having to sign in as a member there, just copy and paste, but the Wikidata template brings over information and data which is uneditable on Wikipedia, and is automatically transferred with a one-use-fits-all template. That's my personal concern, maybe colored by the recent purge of valued images from many of Wikipedia's main articles on painting history and painting movements. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Yes, Wikipedia editors pull material from Commons, but Wikidata templates push WD material onto Wikipedia. And the sort of people who add WP templates never check what is being brought over. It's true that if a Commons file changes, say be being cropped & not uploaded as a new version, what is seen on WP changes, but this is pretty rare. Commons is full of inaccuracies, but one hopes that in most cases WP editors avoid the images that are wrongly described etc. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
          • Randy Kryn The template actually allows a fair amount of customization. for example, on My Shanty, Lake George, I have enabled the onlysourced flag, which makes sure that only sourced data is imported. The advantage here is that it removes the clutter from the infobox that adding citations in an Infobox otherwise would add. It is also possible to suppress any fields so that is not shown. Wikidata's Materials used is a problem, it inserts the "Oil paint, Canvas", but can be easily overwritten with medium = Oil on Canvas for example. As for editing Wikidata, they let IP users edit, you don't have to log in.
            • I was going to add italics in User:Jane023/Paintings by Suzanne Valadon but apparently anything edited here is erased on the next Wikidata update. I really don't want to start editing Wikidata, no offense. The entire linked page 'Paintings by Suzanne Valadon' should also be in visible space on Wikipedia, is that allowed (full pages of only Wikidata coding)? Thanks. And please everyone, note that another 'attack' is underway against Wikipedia images on major articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
              • is that allowed (full pages of only Wikidata coding)? As far as I know, there is consensus against such pages. I don't remember where that discussion took place, but I recall strong consensus against. For example, I couldn't publish User:Vexations/lists/List_of_works_by_Jacques-Louis_David as it is. What I could do is take the wikicode generated on such pages, and paste that in an article, ensuring that no updates will be made to such a page automatically. To update the page, I would then have to perform another copy/paste again. That may satisfy editors who prefer that edits to Wikipedia can only be made on Wikipedia itself. Vexations (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
                • Thanks, and I did copy the page and created it as List of paintings by Suzanne Valadon, with a brief introduction and link and italics fixes. Maybe Wikipedia should contain all such lists that Wikidata has created, such as your David list. Probably a new section should be added to this talk page to go talk over such a question, but yes, I can see the value in copy/paste of such lists. Thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Bisque_porcelain#Requested_move_18_August_2018

I know not many editors (as opposed to readers) are interested in porcelain, but this has gone nearly 3 weeks without a comment. Anything welcome. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should there be an article on Emma Sulkowicz?

Hello! At Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) § RfC, there is an RfC on the question "Should there be an article on Emma Sulkowicz?". You are being notified because the page is tagged as being of interest to this WikiProject. :) -sche (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on the renaming of a painting

There is what may be an interesting discussion at The Indian Church about the use of the word 'renamed' in the first sentence. Can a well-known painting be renamed by a museum after an artist has died? Has this happened often? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Why is article ranked "C"?

I'm impressed with the Illuminated manuscript article and surprised by its lowish "C" ranking. I've not edited it, don't expect to. But I want to suggest that its status be upgraded. GeeBee60 (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

As apparently one of the top 1 or 2 editors of it, I think C is a safe grading really. It's short on refs & probably not checked over for a good while. But thanks! Johnbod (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Question

I was going through the templates at Category:American artist navigational boxes and see several which focus on comic book artists. Do comic book artists belong in this category? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I think so, rightly or wrongly. The comics trees end up parented by the main visual art one. Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. For clarity I'd suggest that the comic tree should be trimmed, at least of those topics not pertaining to original artwork (comics and comic books themselves are reproductions of the art and not the original). The original woodcut of Join, or Die, for example, would be a major museum piece if it still existed. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
A bit more data that comics isn't functionally included in the Wikiproject would be the visual arts template {{Branches of the visual arts}}, and the drawing article which doesn't list (at least on a quick read) comic artists. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I think more eyes are needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maddox Gallery. I think the discussion could benefit from wider input. Bus stop (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps not all that many members of this project are notified of visual art related deletion discussions. Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Article alerts has fewer than 30 page watchers. Vexations (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal of association

Hello, recently I moved the Portal:Pornography to Portal:Erotica and Pornography that seemed to be the original idea of the portal and encompasses broader concepts than simple commercial pornography, like Erotic art. I would like to invite them to help maintain and develop the portal, because I believe it is within the scope of this project.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think pornography is in the scope of this project, to be honest. Vegetables are in the scope of vegetarianism, but meat AND vegetables are not, and would be better covered by food. Sure, erotic art is art, but pornography (with some notable exceptions) generally isn't. Vexations (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Determining if Talk:Macrophilia falls within scope

Might a few editors experienced with this project please review the talk page Talk:Macrophilia including the visual art related sources linked there, then inform me by ping whether they believe the article fits "WikiProject Visual arts"'s scope?

Please give a detailed response, if not too burdensome, responding to all opined correlations with the arts.

Eaterjolly (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

1 left

Given Randy Kryn's bang up job on Template:Wassily Kandinsky, which I just noticed today and which inspired me to produce Template:Aubrey Beardsley, WP:WPVA has only one WP:VA level 4 or higher biography without a biographical template according to my 2017 status update. Gerhard Richter needs some attention.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Nice work on Beardsley. Creating templates for some of these well-known artists is complicated by not having enough material to link. Richter is a good example, and I haven't looked closely but articles on his work seem few. I did a Berthe Morisot template yesterday and made the required five article links for template-creation (unofficial but used at the deletion pages). Even Alfred Sisley is underrepresented by few articles on artworks. But maybe kind-of-empty templates will be filled in time ("build it and they will come"), when new art historians and art appreciation students "discover" Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
The only articles on Richter's works that I am aware of are 18. Oktober 1977, 48 Portraits, Richter window [de; fr; ru], Wand (Wall), Abstraktes Bild (809-1), Domplatz, Mailand [de]. Vexations (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Vexations for some borderline template subjects, we get to a threshold number of links with articles other than works such as family members, Institutions named after him, institutions he created, his legacy in the media and such. Does the list get any longer with any of these subjects.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Randy Kryn if you are looking for subjects, I would go through the WP:VA list. They have begun expanding to a level 5. There should be lots of fairly important artists without templates. It would be interesting if someone went through Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers and determined a list of people still in need of templates like I did 21 months ago before level 5 existed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps this list of works by Gerhard Richter is helpful? Vexations (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Vexations, From that list, it seems that someone should be able to cobble together a group of four subjects worth translating into english. You seem to be quite a Richter fan. I invite you to create enough links to support him having his own template. He stands out in a bad way as the only level 4 WP:VA artist without a biographical template.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I will have another look at the German articles. I could probably do the translations into English, and I am well-acquainted with his work. Vexations (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger I translated de:48 Portraits to 48_Portraits and de:Domplatz, Mailand to Cathedral Square, Milan. Suggestions for improvement (more than) welcome. Thanks, Vexations (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Translations are now complete, and there is a artist navigational box for {{Gerhard Richter}} Vexations (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Painting name

Please, someone can help me to find the name of this painting from Case Closed: Sunset beach woman. Thank you. --95.252.62.76 (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Someone can help me? --95.232.234.171 (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Reversions at Old Master

Comments invited at Talk:Old_Master#Recent_edits. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Tate outsources artist biographies on its website to Wikipedia

Per https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/tate-uses-wikipedia-entries-on-artists-for-its-website, the Tate is “working on a partnership with Wikipedia to ensure the biographies for artists in our collection are as accurate as possible”. Does anyone here know anything about that initiative? Vexations (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The Tate replaced most of their on-line biographies with WP articles in, as I recall, December 2016. Overnight it created a mass of circular references in WP articles which had to be removed and also meant the loss of a large number of good sources. I have no idea who they spoke to at WP. At the time the Tate were inviting feedback on the change but when I contacted them the only response I got was a 'thank-you for your comments'. There was a, very, small discussion about the change on this talk page at the time.14GTR (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I've not heard of anything like that implies. There were 2 editathons at Tate Britain in 2016 organized with Wikimedia UK, one on "Queer British Art at Tate Britain" (coinciding with an exhibition) & the other one of the Art & Feminism series. Doing a search on the WMUK site, there's talk of meetings in 2009 but otherwise not much at all. Mind you, they don't put stuff online the way they used to. I thought Tate Modern weren't very keen to engage with wp when I was involved with that sort of thing a few years ago, & spoke to senior people at conferences. User:RexxS? Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
The very small discussion was here, I think: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts&diff=prev&oldid=753188802# Lucian Freud, a vital article, contains a reference to https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/lucian-freud-1120, which is Wikipedia's text. I have not yet dealt with that one. Other articles affected were John Skeaping, Martin Froy, Denis Masi, Alexander Runciman, Elizabeth Stuart-Wortley, Baroness Wharncliffe, Bhupen Khakhar, Errol Sawyer, John Bellany, Anthony Gross- i have removed the circular references where circular refs were used to cite biographical facts, where the tate website was used to cite that a work is in their collection, I have left them. Bendor Grosvenor's article discussing the change is here. Vexations (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I've transcluded the complete "very small discussion" below, from the archives. Interesting to see how for a few artists such as Francis Bacon they have tabs for both their in-house bio and the Wikipedia bio. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Last week the Tate revamped its website. Among the many changes that have been introduced, they have replaced the artist biographies pages on the site with the first paragraph of the artists' Wikipedia page. Obviously, they are fully entitled to do so but this has created a lot of circular references as many of the WP articles use the artists' Tate biography page as a reference. The biographies for artists without a Wikipedia page have also been deleted, but without any replacement. The Tate are currently inviting comments and feedback on the redesign of the site.14GTR (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

You'd think that might make them less opposed to releasing any free images, but I expect not.... Thanks for the tip. What they say is "For around 100 artists Tate has authored biographies, but for the other artists there was little information to show here. We are now augmenting the Tate authored biography by showing the Wikipedia entry on tate.org.uk." Certainly you get both for Francis Bacon. But I can't see any bio for eg John Opie (T Britain), who certainly has a WP one. Maybe they haven't finished. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tate's mistake is believing that "constantly updated" equals "constantly improved". GeeBee60 (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Are there any current contacts with the Tate to encourage their curators to contribute to Wikipedia some of the time they otherwise would have put into their own biography pages? It would be good to have a GLAM partnership or Wikimedian in residence. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
The Museum of Modern Art simply adds links to wikipedia articles. When clicked on, a portion of the lead is shown, with the option to read further, then links to wikipedia. See e.g., Picasso, MoMA. This avoids circular links, but they have removed valuable references. Coldcreation (talk) 07:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Something may be said about this at the "Tate Late" event at Tate Britain this evening.[3]:

213.205.240.209 (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, Jesus! Daria's such an expert on how WP works. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Is this part of the strategic development of Wikimedia UK activity plan then? User:Daria Cybulska (WMUK), can you please clarify? --Vexations (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
She last made an edit in 2015, so I'd email her at WMUK if you want an answer. Johnbod (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
No, nothing said about this. Just how wonderful it is when institutions provide licence-free images to us, so we can make them available for anyone to reuse. She mentioned a Delft image from the Rijksmuseum, reused in an image that looks like a contact lens advert, discussed further here: [4][5][6][7] That is nothing to do with Wikipedia/Wikimedia as far as I can see.
Places like the Met are releasing a lot of of free images; pity the UK collections are not doing so as much. The moral quid pro quo for the Tate - and some other institutions - relying on our biographical or other textual content must be letting us have good free images. But nothing said about that either.
And the best example of Wikimedia's added value is ... Commons:Category:Cats acting as humans in art. Well done us. 213.205.240.209 (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Link to the Signpost mention of the Tate issue: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-10-01/In the media 213.205.251.57 (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Flickr upload

La Chiffonnière https://www.flickr.com/photos/95443147@N00/4875095645/ Anyone know how to do this? Sorry to use the project page to ask question. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I think red links in these should be formally allowed in VAMOS for two reasons;

  • It gives a fuller impression of the artist's output, how prolific he/she was, or with older artist's, the number of attributed surviving works (esp. important with for eg van Eyck)
  • It encourages new articles; there is a basic physiological motive in wiki editors to turn red links blue. I realise this is for better or worse as we still have a lot more article creation than article development, and I dread micro stubs.

I have been frustrated a number of times re this, particularly with Ingres. Ceoil (talk) 07:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I suppose this is in reference to [8] and [9]? I had the impression that it was fairly common for to have redlinks. --Vexations (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I took a look at navigation templates in Category:Artist (painter) navigational boxes that have redlinks and found:
Vexations (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Some red-links are allowed per guidelines, maybe more than a few are excessive and disruptive to the template, but two or three seem fine. Over that many if not all should probably be removed. The Francis Bacon template, for example, is such an overabundance of red that editors may feel that writing one of the pages will make little difference to the overall impression of the template-map. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Randy, your last point makes a lot of sense and have felt that way often frankly, there and with a few others. Ceoil (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The Bacon template with 40+ red links looks ridiculous. Surely there's a better place to store the red links to encourage creation. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Bit rich coming from the editor that created a bunch of micro stubs and redirects there, and then went to AN/I over them Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
If you want to see something even more ridiculous, {{Tony_Smith}} has 111 redlinks. Vexations (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Good grief. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to apologize for creating redirects of notable topics, so let it go already. Back to the topic being discussed, I see these navigation templates as ways to aid movement between related articles, not to illustrate the size of an artist's output using nonexistent entries. I don't seem to be alone in my thinking here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, if you are going to denegrate the FB templete, its worth mentioning the clutter you created [10] Ceoil (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't be in favour of arbritrary restrictions on numbers of redlinks but, yes, a navbox is there primarily to navigate between articles, so if the great majority of links are red, it's too early to create a navbox. Sionk (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Guidelines are pretty clear on why we don't allow lots of redlinks:

    Red links and redirects should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles. Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first.
    — WP:EXISTING

    If you have a source that shows a proposed navbox set as well-defined and complete, good. But if the set is an artist's "selected works" and there is no definition to the set's completeness, there is no case for navbox redlinks. The navbox is meant to link between existing articles, not to house a to-do list. czar 20:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    ok, all this makes sense. I think I'll limit myself to the "where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result" notions, ie one or two for an artist's bio where one of their styles (eg male portraits) doesn't have a representing article. Ceoil (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

stubs

What can we do about the proliferation of stubs about paintings? There is so much activity of minimal value occurring on articles about art objects now that it's disconcerting. It's not just one editor. I don't know if it's always been this way. Does anyone else find it problematic? Not a lot can be written about many art objects by 'notable' artists, leaving the sense that the material would be better off included in the artist's biography, amalgamated into a holistic "Paintings by X" article (or annotated list), etc. All of this is, of course, more work than plopping a stub in.

New stubs on a rolling basis can be seen here: User:AlexNewArtBot/PaintingSearchResult. Nothing guarantees they're stubs, but they are. Outriggr (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Not a new problem, but the pace of microstub creation has increased. It has to be a disappointing experience for a reader who is for instance exploring the titles in the {{Henri_Matisse}} template to click on a link and be greeted with this or this. Fully 24 of the works listed in that template are five sentences or less, and in most cases have languished in that state for a decade or longer. Merging some of these into a list on the model of List of paintings by Édouard Manet would be an improvement I think. Ewulp (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Attilios used to be one of the worst, but currently User:SamHolt6 has been working his way through the Metropolitam MA catalogue with 3-liners like Broken Eggs (Metropolitan Museum of Art), and User:DilletantiAnonymous is working his way through the Museo di Capodimonte with stuff like Adoration of the Shepherds (Santafede). I wish he'd learn to format refs. Ten years ago, with really major paintings, there was the reasonable hope that someone would come along and expand them later, but that hardly washes now. The WP preference for articles on specific things, of whatever sort, over topics, is something I've railed against for years - see links on my talk page. But they are far more easily created, & many are motivated by "articles created", I suppose. Relevant (but very long) discussion now on at User_talk:Iridescent#Sidetrack_within_a_sidetrack_on_readability_scoring. I've been mainly writing about pottery lately, & one of the nice things is that it naturally falls into topics, not objects. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
How about Seated Nude (1916) and Seated Nude (1917), one sentence. The edit summary is long than the article. Coldcreation (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Contrary to other opinions, I do not take issues with the proliferation (in this case, I am a self-admitted proliferator) of art stubs, though my views are colored by my work with WP:GLAM. The stub articles I produce by and large relay the work's medium, creator, date of creation, current location, etc, supplemented by three or more sentences. They show an image (Courtesy of the Met/GLAM) and are sourced to the Met's entry on the work at a minimum. It is my earnstwhile hope that these stubs, especially the shortest, will be expanded by other editors in the future, and many of them can be. To use Broken Eggs (Metropolitan Museum of Art) (cited above) as an example, the article as it stands is a very short stub that is more or less a retreading of the Met's article I used as a source [11]. However, as can be noted from the Met's website, there are several more paragraphs of content (from the Met catalogue entry on the painting) that can be re-written and added to the Wikipedia article; a quick google scholar search turns up more potential sources, and the same goes for JSTOR. This process could be repeated in regards to any number of the stubs I have created, allowing for their improvement if manpower hours are put into them. This effort could come from a well-established Wikipedia editor, or it could come from a less-experienced editor who may be confused by source editing. I believe that, by producing stubs with (mostly) correctly formulated infoboxes, placed categories, and a strong, reliable source (the Met entries), new ground can be cultivated for further expansion of the stub in question by any editor.

However, I do see the points against the micro-stubs. The fact that some of these stubs (as mentioned above) have not been edited in nearly a decade is disconcerting to say the least. Perhaps Google's increasing reliance on Wikipedia as a source for free information will help abate this issues, but it may behoove me to increase up my sentence count. Adding prospective articles to "List of works by X" is also an interesting idea, and would help reduce article counts.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • The stubs, such as Broken Eggs, seem fine, especially if they contain the image and additional information. Stubs sometimes summarize all there is to know about a work, and much of the importance of stubs is to exhibit the image itself in Wikipedia visible space. List of works by X is always a good idea, but as an extra page and not as a substitute for individual artwork articles which are valuable, for many reasons, themselves. The main concern I have is how much has been missed on the visual art templates. SamHolt6, do you add your new articles to the templates and to the artist's category? If so, and there is adequate information in the stub, then a thank you for your work. DilletantiAnonymous is also proficient and presents interesting works and images, yet doesn't add the new pages to the templates, so there is no centralized record of how current the templates are and what existing articles could be added, so it's catch as catch can (first time I've ever used that oddly worded phrase). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@DilletantiAnonymous: I do as part of my stub-producing MO, provided such a category exists. I have created several categories in the last few months, and created Template:Juan Gris after I created articles for all of Gris' notable works in the MET. I tend to avoid creating articles about works by redlinked artists.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I really don't see how repeating the MET's 5 lines on the painting, which any searcher will easily find, is helpful to anyone. We are just repeating their entries in WP space - why bother? Doing somehat longer articles (which with the MET can very often be sourced to the online books they put up, which are often rather less easy to find), or doing (in more than one sentence) works in a museum that doesn't have online commentary (in English), like Capodimonte, does serve some useful purpose. Don't expect anyone else to expand these stubs; do it yourself. Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@DilletantiAnonymous:, @SamHolt6: it's all well-and-good creating articles about artworks. My recommendation would be (before creating new ones), revisit the stubs and add provenance, some exhibition history, some publications where the works were reproduced (even if only in a Further reading section). The interested reader will know where to gather further information on the artist and work. Avoid, as in Seated Nude (1917), placing the bare URL source in External links. Familiarize yourselves with proper reference formatting. Use as example Gris' Still Life with Checked Tablecloth as a bare minimum when developing stubs further. Coldcreation (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the minimum requirement for WP:DYK is 1500 characters (of actual text) which is a reasonable minimum amount to cover many paintings. Then you can get a dyk as well. Btw, you can see on DilletantiAnonymous's talk that some reviewers seem to be on the warpath claiming (wrongly) that a minimum of 3 sources are needed to demonstrate notability - a range of sources is certainly better. Johnbod (talk) 04:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, and in his/her quasi-unique talk page response, here, the other user is treated unfairly as a "References Police". Coldcreation (talk) 05:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Aha - at least his English is fine - I was beginning to think that his (ahem) extreme lack of verbosity in articles & talk indicated a limited command of the language. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There are two topics here: (1) Stub requirements, and (2) Met stubs. Stub requirements are easy: It won't be deleted/merged if you add sufficient reliable, secondary, independent sourcing. If no one has provided sources, you should feel free to merge as suggested.
The real discussion is why we're working with the assumption that every object in the Met's catalog warrants its own article. When a Met object only has sourcing from Met publications (affiliated or non-independent sourcing), you have a pretty good indication that the external world doesn't find the object as important. Such articles are usually candidates for deletion/merger. czar 20:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree with that (as stated) at all. Not very surprisingly, the fullest and best coverage of major and minor objects in major museums is normally from the museum itself. It is entirely reasonable to write an article only using these sources. There will in the cases of important objects be coverage from other sources, but the ones that are most accessible online will typically be far lower quality - newspaper art critics, a line in quidebooks etc. The National Gallery and National Gallery of Art catalogues have entries of up to 40 pages per painting - generally more comprehensive than any other source, even for star works. For a stub to C class article it is entirely ok to just use these. Other sources that most paintings will have are the catalogue raisonné of t5he artist (virtually never visible online) and exhibition catalogues (except for old MET ones, also hardly ever online). There are arguments that not every painting in a collection is notable, but this line isn't one of them. For long articles almost entirely sourced to publications of the owning museums see for example: The Raising of Lazarus (Sebastiano del Piombo), Holy Thorn Reliquary (FA), Oxus Treasure, Lion Hunt of Ashurbanipal. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Generations of the Hudson River School discussion

Please come participate in this discussion of the "generations" of the Hudson River School. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI, File:Marcel Duchamp Mona Lisa LHOOQ.jpg deleted

Another one bites the dust. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know anywhere near enough about copyright law to be certain, but if the 1919 version was published before 1923, it should be in the public domain in the U.S. Isn't it just a matter of finding a good reproduction and uploading it with a proper license? My understanding is that the image was deleted because it lacked one. There is a good reproduction on https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibition/dali-duchamp that claims the copyright is Succession Marcel Duchamp/ADAGP, Paris and DACS, London 2016. We'd have to consult an expert to find out how much there is to that claim. Is was first reproduced in March 1920, in issue 12 of 391 (magazine) which was published in Spain, Switzerland and the U.S. (New York), although it seem the 9th to 19th issues were published in Paris. The author died 50 years ago. I've tried to figure out it's copyright status by reviewing https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain but I'm afraid I lack the requisite expertise. Someone? Vexations (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think the photo itself has to be taken before 1923, but only that the artwork was already created and known by then. I can't do uploads or I'd put it back with before-1923 (soon to be 1924) attribution. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok, here is the actual page of 391: File:Marcel Duchamp, 1919, L.H.O.O.Q., 391, n. 12, March 1920.jpg. Next I will locate the original (reproduced). The Royal Academy version mentioned above is a different version. Coldcreation (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the moustache and eyes of the published (391) version, it seems it may have been retouched or modified as it was being prepared for print. If so, this version may not exist anywhere else. Coldcreation (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
This is interesting, on the published version. It may be Picabia's version. Coldcreation (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
It certainly looks that way, and it would be lovely to have both images in the article. It seem Picabia drew the moustache but omitted the goatee. The royal academy version is Duchamp's, the 391 was Picabia's. There is this image, http://www.dadart.com/dada-media/Duchamp-LHOOQ-p.jpg and an explanation at http://www.dadart.com/dadaism/dada/035a-duchamp-cage.html
Nice. I found a higher resolution version: File:Marcel Duchamp, 1919, L.H.O.O.Q.jpg, now in the L.H.O.O.Q. article. Coldcreation (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#RFC_on_works_of_art_naming_convention

There has been a long discussion going on about statues, which no one has thought to notify & link to here. Now there's a proposal for a new "convention". None of them seem to have heard of WP:VAMOS. Comments welcome. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorolla Challenge

Hello. I would like to share with you that there is a writing challenge during November about the works of Joaquín Sorolla. You can participate in any language. The contest is organized by Wikimedia España and Museo Sorolla. The information about the project in at meta:Sorolla Challenge. Thanks. --Millars (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

jqitan and my page Ancient Cypriot art

Hi. I'd love for my page Ancient Cypriot art to be included in this WikiProject. Do you think that it meets the guidelines? I'd really appreciate some feedback or a peer review from this project base. Thank you! --Jqitan (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Jquitan, it seems like a very good page which has been edited by others after your above notice to make it even better. It needs categories, which maybe someone can help with. Nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Guernica exemption

Still interested in putting forward a suggestion for a Guernica exemption for the "copyrighted" (even though Picasso gave it freely to the people of Spain) image to be used on the Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía page. The reasoning is that even though it holds other magnificent and important work, this single artwork defines the museum. Guernica is, in many ways, more than just a painting, but is an international treasure. Question: Is there any other museum which is defined by one artwork that's still in copyright? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Frank Schoonover#Alvin York painting

Shouldn't Frank Schoonover#Alvin York painting be split into a separate article?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Sibling painters category

I've put up a Category:Sibling painters, and am asking for help in populating it. Imagine if Claude Monet was a talented triplet! Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

What about Rosa Bonheur and Isidore Bonheur? Coldcreation (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, added them, and they had a couple more too. The category has been well stocked since I've looked at it, so it's left the nest and is out in the world. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Randy Kryn, have a look at User:Vexations/lists/painters_who_have_siblings Vexations (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, a good list. That should be a "gold mine" of information for such a category. Nice work and I'm glad you had an interest in creating it. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
And just discovered the category:Artist families. Won't poke around it or your list now, but good to know about them for later. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
The Brothers Quay stop-motion animated film artists. Netherzone (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Viking art listed at Requested moves

Resolved

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Viking art to be moved to Norse art. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

When is a "List of works by..." article justified?

Is there any guideline for when a standalone article, List of works by [name of artist], is justified in lieu of a subsection of an existing article on the artist? The person I have in mind is Herbert Maryon. No catalogue of his works exists (this is the closest approximation), but by cobbling together individual references, it would be possible to come up with a list of several dozen works and many photographs. The list would thus not be terribly long, but long enough to be somewhat cumbersome in the article on Maryon. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

You might go for Works or Sculptures of Herbert Maryon. "List" implies some degree of completeness, & I doubt this will be at all possible, as he seems to have done lots of small works, metalwork that might not exactly be sculpture & so on. The biography is certainly long enough that a big list might be better floated off. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Johnbod, that makes sense. I think I'll go with Works of Herbert Maryon. As you said, this is likely to be substantially incomplete, and his works are varied enough that assigning them to one medium would be problematic. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Johnbod, went with Works of Herbert Maryon with about 10 redirects. 15 works listed so far, with more to come; it is, and will undoubtedly remain, a work in progress. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

List of statues on Paseo de la Reforma

If you've been to Mexico City and/or have an interest in public art displayed along Paseo de la Reforma, I'm currently working on List of statues on Paseo de la Reforma. See talk page for ongoing discussions and requests for help identifying subjects in images hosted at Wikimedia Commons.

Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Trouble at Persian miniature

where an isp is edit-warring to use the term in Persian.... This is never used as a term in English RS. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

What is a "morse"?

Black and white photograph of a morse
"Morse in silver and enamel", designed by Herbert Maryon

This object was published in a 1903 issue of The International Studio (link), and described as a "morse in silver and enamel". It was designed by Herbert Maryon and executed by Thomas Clark, both of the Keswick School of Industrial Art. Does anyone have an idea what it is? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

From the disam page: "Morse, an archaic word for the clasp of a cope" - I'd query archaic really. Add it to the commons category! Happy Christmas & New Year everyone - Adoration of the Shepherds (Cariani) was my Christmas card this year, Johnbod (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
That makes sense, thanks. I had gotten it into my head that the morse was too big to be such a clasp, when clearly the photo just makes it look larger than it is. Good to see the examples on commons. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Image widths and infobox at Talk:Witches' Sabbath (The Great He-Goat)

There are some ongoing discussions at Talk:Witches' Sabbath (The Great He-Goat) re: images and whether or not the article should have an infobox, if any project members care to weigh in. The conversations started when the article appeared on the Main Page today. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Commons attempt to remove image of Veiled Christ

Deletion request here, image here What happened is I nominated the image for Picture of the Day, and whamm, somebody wants it removed from its page and the site. This is an image of a truly remarkable statue, an almost unbelievable human creation. Please consider commenting on its Picture of the Day nomination as well. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: The nominator has uploaded another nice image of the statue, and this one could work if someone horizontally cropped out some of the onlookers. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
UPDATE: I think there is far more than enough evidence now to save this image from deletion, but who knows how these things go. If COMMONS ignores the data, and I don't really see how they can, is there an appeals process? The 'picture of the day' nom was defeated because the image wasn't large enough. But what came of it is the awareness that only one marble statue has ever been made picture of the day, and another one was nominated by the same fellow mentioned above. If you have marble statue favorites and the images is more than 1500px by 1500px then it would be eligible. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Florine Stettheimer

There is a new editor who is eager to contribute (the author of The Life and Art of Florine Stettheimer, it seems), see discussions at Talk:Florine Stettheimer and Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#I_need_assistance_from_a_Senior_Editor. If you'd like to help, please do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Asking Wikipedia Editors to Please Approve & Replace new Florine Stettheimer Entry. (Detailed request as per Grabergs Graa Sang's mention above)

Unfortunately, the current, factually inaccurate, Stettheimer entry in Wikipedia was written by a graduate student based on incorrect and in some cases untrue information taken from an old source (who admitted in the book itself) that he "made up" and "exaggerated" what he wrote about the artist. As the writer of the only extant biography of the artist Florine Stettheimer, I have written a more comprehensive, and factually accurate entry on the artist and the significance of her work at User: Barbarabloemink/sandbox I would greatly appreciate a Wikipedia editor reading it and helping replace my more comprehensive, factual and up-to-date Stettheimer entry (far more reliable sources, both primary and factual,) with the existing entry which also does not prioritize her significance or the importance of her work. As there was no accurate biography of the artist until mine was published, a number of articles and books that are quoted in the existing article have continue(d) to quote the early source with its "alternative facts", untrue statements, and exaggerations that have completely marginalized the artist. Also, in the last decade, the artist's work has been recognized as having a great deal more significance than her being merely a "jazz saloniste" as the current entry implies. The existing Wikipedia entry also does not include most of the major reliable and primary sources on her work.

I originally did try and was able to correct significant falsehoods in the first paragraphs of the current entry, however, there was too much information that needed to be added, unreliable sources that stated outright lies (as can be checked via actual writings from the artist herself,) that needed to be deleted, and primary sources missing, that editors at Wikipedia would not allow me to continue doing sufficient editing/re-writing on the current entry to do the artist's biography/art work's significance and reliable sources justice.Therefore I was forced to write a comprehensive and factually accurate entry on Florine Stettheimer at 'User: Barbarabloemink/sandbox,' Several terrific Wikipedia editors helped me edit this according to Wikipedia format and suggested that I come to this site to request assistance in REPLACING the entry I have written with their assistance with the current, unreliable, inaccurate Stettheimer entry on Wikipedia. My only interest is to ensure that the WIKIPEDIA Entry on Florine Stettheimer provides Factual, Truthful, Accurate and Significant information on this Important Early Feminist Artist for interested readers!

I realize that this entire issue of "alternative facts" and credible sources is a complex one on a site like Wikipedia which is "collaborative" however I am the only recognized Stettheimer scholar spent 20 years conducting and writing factual research on the artist, wrote the only extant biography, and interviewed the only family members and friends of the artist who knew her before they all passed away. The entry on User: Barbarabloemink/sandbox has many many reliable sources quoted, and hopefully many others will continue to it into the future - but at least it will be factual and comprehensive from the outset! As there is no "Head Judicial Forum" to whom to appeal, I am appealing to whoever has the ability to replace the current inaccurate entry with User:Barbarabloemink/sandbox, so that interested readers/students/the public will be able to trust what they read in Wikipedia about Florine Stettheimer is factually reliable and not "false facts." Thank you in advance for your help with this. Barbarabloemink (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Barbarabloemink January 24 2019Barbarabloemink (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

New article: Portrait of Don Miguel de Castro, Emissary of Congo

Hi people,

I created a new article, Portrait of Don Miguel de Castro, Emissary of Congo. As I'm not very well-read on visual arts, I don't know on which articles to reference this painting. It remains a bit of an orphan. Any help is very much appreciated! Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added Category:Black people in art, which seems the first thing to do. Johnbod (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments please at Talk:Laocoön and His Sons/Archives/2023/December#Darwin's comment

Where there's an ongoing discussion. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Old "Folk art" replaced.

It's not really on my beat, but the old "Folk art" has been entirely replaced and redirected to Folk art objects - a jump from 7kb to 80kb. A very short & odd Folk arts has also been set up. The new article has many obvious issues, even on a cursory scan. The same editor created Mexican-American folklore in December, which also had big problems. He doesn't seem very responsive. The old page got avge. 335 views pd, so it should be decent. What we have now seems to me a rambling top-level essay on the theory of folk art, with almost no discussion of even broad categories of actual examples, nor any new images. It seems unlikely to be what the reader wants. Meanwhile, Folk arts seems to draw from one of those long UNESCO committee-written screeds that were being dumped around the place. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod, are you suggesting a revert to the former page or to improve the article at the link. Please do what you think works best with this. Thanks for pointing it out. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
At the moment, I think the easiest might be moving the new Folk art objects to Theory of folk art, for gradual digestion, and reinstating the old "Folk art" version - poor though it was. Then hopefully improving it. Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
At Folk arts, in the Forms of folk arts section, I find the wording "tangible objects". It occurs to me that perhaps the title Folk art objects should be changed to Folk art (tangible objects). Bus stop (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
How does that help? In general, we keep to art=visual art, ie (normally) "tangible objects" - & treat "artist" likewise, avoiding "artist" for musicians etc. And there's really no discussion at all in the article of any actual "tangible objects", it's all theory. I think it's very generally understood that Folk art means tangible stuff. At the moment Folk art just redirects to the objects article, but I don't think that will do. Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Smithriedel 04:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Thanks Johnbod for giving me specifics to respond to.

1) I did not create the text on the page Mexican-American folklore in December. That text landed on my page Folklore, without context, and I simply moved it to its own page. I do not know anything about that topic, so I can't fix it. Maybe you should delete it.

2) The very short Folk arts page is to separate all the different forms of Folk arts. Dancing, singing, and objects. My page only deals with the material folk arts, i.e. objects. Any title Folk art will get muddled with both intangible and tangible folk art forms. I created that page to distinguish and point to the different forms, each of which has their own page.

3) All folk art objects are tied to a specific region and culture. I have put a list somewhere to include links to pages of regional folk arts. Maybe the list needs to be made more prominent. In this page, I cannot pick any one folk art form, because they are literally all over the globe.

4) I don't do pictures, but other people love to add images. Just not my thing.

5) I would be fine with a rename of the page to Folk art (tangible objects), or Folk art theory keeping the Folk art on the front of the title. The old article is inaccurate and wrong, please don't use it again. You cannot have a single article on material Folk art. You can only have articles on different cultural folk art forms.

6) I have no problem working with you to clean this up. I have written other folklore pages, and they have all stayed quite stabile. This one uses a lot of quotes and citations, because it is quite difficult to pin down, between what is art and what is beauty, etc. I looked for consensus in the professional literature. Smithriedel 04:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I see you wrote Family folklore, mostly in 2014, & that is stable. But that gets >10 views a day, while Folk art got 300+, so you must expect a lot more scrutiny. After 5+ years, you still don't realize we don't randomly bold words and phrases in the middle of text? I could live with a move to Folk art theory. I don't agree at all that "art" is ambiguous (see just above - if anyone thinks that German art will cover music or literature, they find out differently as soon as they arrive. Johnbod (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I also wrote the pages Folklore, Folklore studies, Jokes, etc. I know my stuff in folklore. In cultural heritage, the rules are a little different. I would be very happy with a title change to Folk art (tangible objects). Have to go to bed now, please don't do anything drastic until I am up again tomorrow. Smithriedel 04:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Smithriedel 04:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't think Folk art (tangible objects) is good or necessary. Another thing you haven't learnt is how to indent on talk pages I see. Johnbod (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
For now, I have reinstated the old Folk art there, leaving Folk art objects where it is, though I still think it should be moved. Both pages have considerable issues - in particular the "objects" page is clearly largely concerned with North America, and has many statements that are not applicable to Europe, let alone the rest of the world. I will comment on this at the talk page there. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

TfD to merge Template:WorksDecade navigation with Template:Navseasoncats

@ Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 27#Template:WorksDecade navigation.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Wanted poster, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Spliting discussion for Tattoo artist

An article that you have been involved with (Tattoo artist) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article ( Tattoo studio ). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Talk:Tattoo artist#Moving studio section . Thank you. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Turf War (Banksy) at AfD

Resolved

Turf War (Banksy) has been nominated for deletion:

---Another Believer (Talk) 18:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The article was kept. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation discussion

Please see Talk:Winged_Victory_(statue)#Disambiguation re: disambiguation and the title of Winged Victory (statue). Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Graffiti for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Graffiti is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Graffiti until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 11:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Production logo, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Nomination of Portal:Drawing for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Drawing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Drawing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 10:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Richard Cornish

Hi all - I've come across Richard Cornish and wondered if anyone can help with this. He is clearly a notable artist but the article needs work - formatting of references and reading like a CV. Many thanks, Tacyarg (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for comments on List of Photographers

You are invited to join the discussion regarding edits to List of Photographers. The discussion is addressing the following questions:

  • Within each section, should the entries by sorted alphabetically or chronologically?
  • Should date of birth and date of death be added to entries?
    • Should nationality, date of birth, and date of death information be supported using reliable sources if that information is in the entry's corresponding article?
  • Is the Photographers' Identity Catalog (PIC) a reliable source for nationality, date of birth, and date of death?
    • If a source is deemed reliable, should there be a limit on how many times it is used?

Your contributions are welcome. Thank you! Qono (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Tamara de Lempicka

Comments are invited at Talk:Tamara de Lempicka. Ewulp (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment at Talk:List of works by Leonardo da Vinci

A request for comment is underway at Talk:List of works by Leonardo da Vinci#Talk:List_of_works_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci#RfC_-_Horse_and_Rider. The RfC addresses the following question:

  • Should the wax statue entitled Horse and Rider on the List of works by Leonardo da Vinci page be included in the Recent Attributions or Disputed Attributions section?

All are invited to participate. SamHolt6 (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Gorō Hobo

I suspect this subject may be notable, but I can't support preserving the article as written, given its unsourced claim that the subject is "renowned" (apparently the result of reading too much into a colorful translation of the title of a book that has a short article on him); however, if anyone has quick access to that book and could fix the article. Wikipedia has a systemic language problem on this one, I think. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes I have the needed books but no I'm not going to do this, and nobody else should feel obliged to do so either. For a longer and perhaps more persuasive response, see this; and if anyone would like to disagree (or even agree) with me, please do so there. -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Proto-Surrealism, Renaissance and Early Netherlandish painting

There is a discussion at Talk:Proto-Surrealism that requires the input of specialists, as to wether the subject of "Proto-Surrealism" meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Coldcreation (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

List of Impressionist artists

Discussion of whether to create such a list at Talk:Impressionism#Should_List_of_Impressionist_artists_be_created? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The draft is now changed to Draft:List of women Impressionists. Please continue to comment at the same talk thread. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Museums for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Museums is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Museums until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 11:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Color for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Color is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Color until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 22:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing disambiguation discussion

See Talk:Mohandas K. Gandhi (sculpture, San Francisco) ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oceana_Rain_Stuart

Pkease discuss at this page. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Liberty_(goddess)#Requested_move_27_May_2019

Art & Language and Art-Language

There's a lot of overlap between these two articles (and the former seems to contain a lot of cruft), so they could benefit from some attention from a knowledgeable editor. Perhaps a merge would be appropriate? --Randykitty (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Probably - Art & Language actually gets a good number of views (c 40 pd), which the other doesn't. Whether they are all looking for this obscure group I don't know. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
To my mind, they can be merged - carefully. From the view here in the US I recall Art & Language as a notable collaborative group of conceptual artists - in the 1970's we heard about them quite a lot. Whereas Art-Language was their publication. The two could be into one article, however it makes sense that the article should lead with the conceptual art group itself, and the publication could be a section within that article. Netherzone (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I thought. Would you or somebody else here be able to do the merge? I'm not very knowledgeable in this area, I fear. --Randykitty (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
After further investigation, it seems that after 1972 the group Art & Language was no longer so directly involved. It was mainly a stand-alone publication from 1972 to 1985 when publication ceased. That is 13 years of its 20-year run. So on second thought, I think it is best that they remain as two distinct articles, but with "See also" pointing to one another. Both articles could stand some cleaning up, tho. How does that sound to you two? Netherzone (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Art UK (aka the Public Catalogue Foundation, content formerly presented as "Your Paintings" on the BBC website) is a charity that has systematically catalogued and imaged every oil painting in public ownership in the UK -- the first time this has ever been done -- and now makes the results available on its website.

We currently have 22,547 artists on Wikidata matched to Art UK pages, 7701 of whom currently have articles on English Wikipedia. (Wikipedia:GLAM/Your_paintings#Stats).

Up to a couple of days ago, we had about 1800 articles transcluding the {{Art UK bio}} template in their External Links section, to link to the relevant material for the artist on the Art UK site. So about 6000 articles that could have such links didn't, the choice of those that did typically being a rather haphazard and arbitrary accident of history.

It seems to me that generally, for most of the artists, this would be a useful link to give to our readers. So in the last day or so I have started working down the list, adding it in an organised way, starting with the painters with the largest numbers of works in UK collections and going from there. The template now has 2093 transclusions, and is present on all painters with more than 34 works in UK collections, that being where I have got to.

However, User:Coldcreation saw my addition to the Paul Cézanne article, and has objected, saying this is spam.

So I would like to ask, is it the VA project's view that this is a useful template to add systematically, as we do for eg the IMDB templates; or should I go no further? Jheald (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems like a good external link as long as it links to the works of the artist whose page it's placed on (only looked at the Cézanne link). One problem is that the site wants visitors to agree to cookies (although that's a personal objection, i.e. I won't be clicking on it), so that may or may not be a problem. I can't remember discussions about cookies at Wikipedia links. Thanks for your additions (except for the need for cookies). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I would not add thousands of links to this website here at Wikipedia. There are already more than 300. There is an article about it where users can then move on to see works. The Art UK logo looks very unprofessional. No technique or dimensions are given for the works, at least on the pages I checked. But there is an annoying pop-up window that says "Subscribe to our newsletter". Coldcreation (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Coldcreation: Date, medium, dimensions, accession number, and acquisition story are there if you click through on one of the images and then scroll down on its own page. I think the charity is run fairly frugally; they may not have huge resources, and most of what they do have may be going towards their current new project of photographing public works of sculpture. I'm not crazy about their logo, but presumably somebody thought it was a good idea. Jheald (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The merits or otherwise of Art UK's logo have no bearing on whether we should be including links to their website. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia have a policy against adding links to sites which use pop-ups and other irritating not-clicking-here-again coding? If not maybe it should, which may make some of these sites rethink their own policies and how they treat the public. It seems a good link if not for that. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Just on the cookies issue - I had a quick look at the Art UK website to check - the cookie pop-up and agreement is a requirement of the UK General Data Protection Act and the European General Data Protection Regulation. Art UK note this under their privacy policy. This is common practice for British and European websites. I don't know what Wikipedia's policy on this is. Uberlibris (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Please continue;- Art UK is a really usefull link to have in an article, particularly where no images are readily available but also more generally, and clearly not spam.14GTR (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with 14GTR on this, Art UK is a useful service which provides benefit to those readers who want to follow the external link. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
It should be added selectively, first checking what they have on their site for the artist. For obscure but productive British artists, with little on Commons, it is invaluable. For big names from abroad, often not so much. For Charles Walter Simpson (English artist), Commons has nothing, but Art UK 27 paintings. Unfortunately their image size is rather too small to make mass-uploading to Commons very worthwhile where copyright is not an issue for us (which we have discussed with them, but their hands are tied by the terms they agreed with the owners). Titian has 268 works, which sounds great, but most are copies or "school of". I don't know that you can filter these out. For many fairly well-known non-British artists there may well be only one or two images, far less than is on Commons, & it is not worth it. Edvard Munch just has a single image for example. Paul Cézanne has a decent selection of 38 images, but I'd defer to local editors. Johnbod (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jheald: Johnbod is correct. The link should be added selectively, per above arguments. Wikipedia does not need 6000 links to Art UK. Coldcreation (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the link for Titian was added by User:Jane023 in March 2013 (diff), and has stayed on the article ever since. Yes there are a fair number of "copy of", "school of", and "style of" works, but these can be of interest in themselves; and the Art UK link does lead to a lot of paintings where Titian's authorship is undisputed.
Something that's been very striking going through the pages is that choice of external links seem to very very random. A lot of pages may have links to Artcyclopedia or Artnet or other sites, but their inclusion seems to be quite arbitrary. Similarly we may link to a gallery that contains some (sometimes only one) of the artist's works, or we may not. Some of these galleries may be large, like the Tate or the National Galleries of Scotland; sometimes it's just to a couple of paintings in a local or regional collection. There seems to be little guidance offered on the project page, so what links have been added or not seems to be largely haphazard.
@Randy Kryn, Coldcreation, Uberlibris, 14GTR, and Johnbod: Since I've been working down, starting with artists where there is the most content on the ArtUK site, I propose to keep going until I get to articles where there are only say 20 or 15 works on the ArtUK site. (Even so, JohnBod says it might be the page that contains a handful of images for a really obscure artist that is particuarly valuable). If the link is there, then people can consider it, and remove it if they think it is superfluous. That's probably the right way round, to get the right links on the right articles. I'd rather add the link and leave it to the actual editors of the page to decide, than make such a call myself.
I hadn't actually looked at our Titian - I could live without a link there myself. I think the best approach (which of course takes longer) is to first look at Commons, then any other museum etc lks, then see if Art UK really adds significantly. For most artists who didn't work in the UK for a good period, it won't. It might be best to start with British artists (or at least residents) only. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Also of possible interest is Wikipedia:GLAM/Your paintings/redlinks, which gives the artists with the largest numbers of works at Art UK that don't yet have an article here (or not one linked to the relevant Wikidata item anyway). Quantity is not necessarily an indicator of quality, but some of these might merit consideration. At least one (Alfred Worthington) has had an article here, that was later deleted. That might be worth reconsideration, given that there do appear to be sources about him.
Most of these seem to be still in copyright - Art UK is especially useful there as they've got permissions. But it limits the attractiveness of writing bios I expect. Not my cup of tea. Older painters tend to have been mass-imported from (usually pretty poor) out of copyright encyclopaedias like "Bryan's". The existence of works in many museums is itself some evidence of notability. Of the few really "old" ones, Henry Pickering has a Commons category & could easily support an article. Generally, the adding and removal of external links has left pretty random results. Artcyclopedia or Artnet are rarely worth it imo. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Finally it might be a moment to review the template text, and which page it targets at Art UK. See subsection below. Jheald (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
It is most certianly not spam, and Coldcreation should know better than to dismiss your valued contributons, linking to an important and highly reputable organisation's site, as such. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The Réunion des Musées Nationaux (RMN), for comparison sake, is dedicated to promoting public collections of national museums in France. While not a charity, its goals are arguably similar to Art UK. One of the major differences is that the former—upon request by individuals, scientists, and other professionals—provides ultra-high resolution images from a database of over 800,000 images. The point is, even though orders of magnitude more useful that Art UK, you do not see RMN plastered gratuitously or indiscriminately across External links sections of thousands of Wikipedia articles, even though it would obviously be exceedingly beneficial. In the case of Art Uk—with its images of highly dubious quality—doing so would appear as nothing more than an attempt to promote the site (for whatever reason). Coldcreation (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The question isn't 'could Art UK be better?' but 'would readers benefit from visiting the website?' Where there are images complementing what may not be available via Commons the answer is of course yes. Richard Nevell (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The question is whether the link should be added to potentially in excess of 6,000 Wikipedia articles—according to Jheald—when many of these same images are already at Commons or at other websites such as RMN in much higher resolution. The answer is indubitably no. Coldcreation (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
What proportion are on Commons? Until it is 100% the link still adds value, aside from other information which may interest readers such as the collections artworks belong to, and then you're a click away from other works in the collection. Richard Nevell (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a repository for images or links to images (especially not 100% of them), nor is Wikipedia a WP:LINKFARM (many articles already have too many external links), nor is Wikipedia intended to promote a website, per WP:ELNO (such as appears to be the case here). Coldcreation (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
"plastered gratuitously" Straw man. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
A straw man argument is something entirely different. Coldcreation (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Art UK target page, and templated text

Currently the template links to the page at Art UK showing the artist's works, eg [12].

This is not the site's main page for the artist, which would be eg [13]. The works page may be preferable, because it is more immediately information-dense, and is the comprehensive view of the artist's works on the site. However, it doesn't present so readily the list of venues with works by the artist; nor any blog posts on the site that touch on the artist. It's easy enough to make the links point to either page: which would people prefer?

Text-wise, the template currently renders as:

On a few pages, eg Camille Pissarro it has been being used with additional text, so:

which clarifies what Art UK is, at the expense of additional verbiage. Again, do people have any particular preference? Whatever we set as a default could be over-ruled on specific pages; but most pages are likely to simply present the default. Jheald (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Pigsonthewing: as having also previously edited the template. Jheald (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
On the whole, I think the current target is best. Many people will not spot the "view all 25 paintings" link. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jheald: Thank you. whatever target we link to, we definitely don't need the name twice. How about:

which has all the information in your second version, with fewer words? Can we also change "British collections" to "UK collections"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, sooner or later, we'll have to change "paintings" to "works", as ArtUK are adding sculptures. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Is that going to be on the same site? Relatively few artists will have both. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It has always been my opinion that the Art UK link should just be added to the Authority control template. People can click on the link from that template. We already include the link for RKDartists, which has more explicit biographical information, but which includes a link to artworks in most cases. So if we did that it would solve the issue of the handwork involved (especially since these needed to be updated for a website change once already). Jane (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

This would suit me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Whew! Just realized how many years it has been since I originally proposed that. In the meantime I have used the Art UK database to dig up lots of female artists and I appreciate all the Wikidata work on this done by User:Jheald and others. The database has proven to be remarkably clean over the years and I love the 1-1 relationship of artists & venues to their works (I wish the RKDartists had the same 1-1 relationship with RKDimages). Since all three are so well indexed, maybe the authority control template could be adjusted for the arts to be used on all three entities - people, venues (at least in the UK) and artworks (I think Sam W. did make it work for artworks so it might be worth trying out for UK paintings). Jane (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

notability-check

Dear people, in the german wikipedia we have a forum where we can tell about the articles we would like to write and other wikipedians give there opinion concerning relevance of the intended article. Noone wants to write an article which gets deleted right away. In the english wikipedia there seems no forum for this, so i hope it is okay to ask you. I would like to write on the artist Debra Ramsay - here one can find a list of her exhibitions so far: https://www.debraramsay.com/page-cv - and she is on artsy as well, here is an article from the golden foundation on her and her work https://www.goldenfoundation.org/artist-in-residency-announcements-debra-ramsay - the notability-criteria of the english wikipedia are somewhat less specific as the german "relevance-criteria" - so i just don't know wheter one could consider her as relevant or not. It would be very kind if you could give your opinion. Thanks in advance. --Gyanda (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Here it's WP:NOTABILITY, specifically WP:ARTIST. She looks rather marginal to me, I have to say. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree, having read the criteria! Thanks! --Gyanda (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Gyanda FYI the Golden Foundation is a paint company foundation - it's a very different sort of endorsement than say the Pollock-Krasner Foundation, or the Guggenheim Foundation or the Gottlieb Foundation. I looked at her CV and it seems it's WP:TOOSOON for this artist. Netherzone (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation of the Golden Foundation, i didn't know that. I agree with the "too soon", will keep her on my watchlist and check from time to time. Kind regards and again thank you for your opinion! --Gyanda (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Deleted Titian Draft:Rest on the Flight into Egypt (Titian) draft

Found this one being tossed into the bin and asked for its return so it can possibly be saved. Please have a look, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Court_painter#Requested_move_14_July_2019

Please comment there, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Francesco Carracci

Hi everyboy. I've yet published the italian page of this ancient painter (Francesco Carracci aka "it:Franceschino Carracci). Googling I've found his portrait at The British Museum here; is there any chance to import the image into Commons? Thanks a lot and, please, forgive my bad english.Flazaza (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Naming conventions for public statues

See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Visual_arts#Naming_conventions_for_public_statues. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Visual arts ought to be merged with this page. Bus stop (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
No, that wouldn't go down well with MOS types, and we never merge talk pages without merging the pages themselves. But the rare rfc-type discussions there should be linked here, as this one has been. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Dana Schutz, Open Casket

Should the lede of Dana Schutz mention Open Casket? If so, with what wording? Bus stop (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this conversation. Bus stop and I have been debating this in the DS Talk page. Briefly, my argument is that the lede should NOT mention Open Casket because it is not the main reason Schutz is notable. I think Open Casket should have its own section in the body of the article (as it does), but I feel that including one sentence about Open Casket in the two-sentence lede biases the article negatively. Especially the way it's now written, with a quote from another artist calling for Schutz's paintings to be "destroyed." The word "destroyed" is a highly negative way to start an encyclopedia entry on an artist as major as Schutz. I think it's probably a pretty marginal position to call for "destroying" her paintings, so why is it in the lede?
I could probably live with a mention of "her controversial painting Open Casket" in passing, like how the Andres Serrano entry mentions Piss Christ. But really I don't see why Open Casket should be in the lede at all since that is not the most important event warranting Schutz's inclusion in Wikipedia.
What do others think? Aroundthewayboy (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The painting Open Casket is not found to be insensitive, offensive, or disrespectful of the subject matter. The "problem" is that a white woman addressed that subject. There are examples of black people defending Dana Schutz' depiction of Emmett Till's death. Here is Whoopi Goldberg, a black woman, coming to the defense of Dana Schutz. The reader warrants being apprised in the lede that this is the article about the painter involved in a controversy over a painting. I don't think we are lending prominence to the incident. We are serving the readers' needs by providing them with a valid entry point into the biography of the artist. Bus stop (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Is this really the most important or notable thing about Dana Schutz, the artist who was very prominent for more than a decade before this controversy? You are assuming that readers will be coming into the article only because of the controversy, but I argue that that's Recentism -- her Wikipedia entry as written now is, if anything, extending the half life of the controversy by putting this in the lede (and Wikipedia extending attention to a controversy is not NPOV).
I think that putting the controversy not just in the lede, but dominating 1/3 of the lede with a long, inflammatory quote about how her paintings should be "destroyed," is definitely giving way too much prominence to this non-central incident in her career.
I hear what you're saying about orienting readers, though. What if instead of the standalone sentence with a long quote, we rewrote it to be more like the Serrano entry? So it would refer to "her controversial painting Open Casket" or some phrasing like that, but not elaborate on the controversy in the lede? Aroundthewayboy (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
What would you think about this phrasing as the (complete) lede?
"Dana Schutz (born 1976) is an American artist who lives and works in Brooklyn, New York. She is known for her humorous, gestural paintings that take on specific subjects or narrative situations as a point of departure. She is also notable for her controversial 2017 Whitney Biennial painting Open Casket."
I actually still think that is not as neutral as it should be, and that it extends the half life of the controversy, because by including the 2017 controversy in the lede it implies that it's one of the two most important things to know about Schutz. But I think a rewrite like that would be an improvement, at least. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Protests advocating that a painting be destroyed are not an WP:NPOV violation or a WP:BLP violation, unless we assume the biography is an advertisement for the artist. I am not "assuming that readers will be coming into the article only because of the controversy". I haven't the foggiest idea of the route that readers take to get to an article. It is not as if Open Casket is non-representative of the artist. This isn't an example of the artist's hypothetical dabbling in sound art. She works in painting. "Open Casket" is one of her paintings. You are calling it an "inflammatory quote". Basically book burning and the destroying of art are frowned upon in our culture. This is not "inflammatory". It is descriptive and informative. Bus stop (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, book burning is frowned upon, which is why when I casually read the Schutz entry I was so shocked that previous editors included what seems to me to be an affirmation to "destroy" her art in the lede. By giving this anti-Schutz quote from an obscure artist pride of place in the lede, it is making it seem as if this is a widely held opinion, as if a mainstream take on Schutz's work is that it is worthy of destruction.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you're wrong, maybe we're both wrong lol. I would LOVE for someone other than me or you to weigh in! Have a great Sunday! Aroundthewayboy (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
It is not "anti-Schutz" at all. One of the most memorable comments about "Open Casket" involves the call for its destruction. It is a startling comment. I don't think any other single painting by Schutz has garnered this much attention. I like all of Schutz' work but a bio article on her should alert a reader right from the start which artist this is. There is no value judgement at all. It is jogging the memory of the reader who has a vague recollection of this incident and it is alerting a reader with no familiarity, of a shocking reaction to one of her paintings. Contemporary art is often provocative. Contemporary art often polarizes people—with its defenders and detractors on opposing sides. The calls for the painting's destruction is as much to Schutz' credit as it is "anti-Schutz". By the way I most certainly did not insinuate you were trying to turn this into an advertisement for Schutz. I think you misunderstand the construction of an article such as this. I wouldn't go overboard with excessive detail about the "Open Casket" incident in the lede. But the sentence you object to is in my opinion an encapsulation of an incident that serves readers' interests well—a reader would want to read on to find out more about something so odd. How often do you hear of calls for the destruction of paintings? Have a good Sunday. Bus stop (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm just trying to stay cool! Aroundthewayboy (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to add that I'm not saying she was trying to be provocative. In fact I do not think she was trying to be simplistically provocative. Nevertheless tackling difficult subjects can result in the polarization of viewers. This makes interesting reading. Bus stop (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I read that in print when it came out a couple years ago. Interesting article. I personally don't care for the painting, FWIW, and I think it was not cool. BUT as someone who has been editing WP for 13 years and is intimately aware of the logically nuanced, thorny issues in the construction of an article such as this, I think a long quote from an obscure rival artist about how Dana Schutz's painting deserves to be "destroyed" does not belong in the lede of her WP entry. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The controversy should be described or at least mentioned in the lede. Per MOS, the lede should summarize the article, and the Open Casket affair constitutes more than 1/3 of the text of the article. Expanding the lede a bit—it is short—would make the Open Casket material less prominent there. Ewulp (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for this comment! You have made the first argument that I have found compelling (that it should be in the lede because it takes up 1/3 of her article, although I also think the fact that it takes up 1/3 of her article is due to recentism).
I still think that leaves open the possibility of a much more neutral way to describe it, such as something like "She is also known for her controversial Whitney Biennial painting Open Casket, which depicted Emmett Till in a way that some protestors objected to." What would you think about that edit?
I also like your idea of expanding the lede, which really does need expansion to include more about her actual career. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
"I personally don't care for the painting, FWIW, and I think it was not cool. BUT as someone who has been editing WP for 13 years and is intimately aware of the logically nuanced, thorny issues in the construction of an article such as this, I think a long quote from an obscure rival artist about how Dana Schutz's painting deserves to be 'destroyed' does not belong in the lede of her WP entry." The quote that is in the article is from Hannah Black and it appears in The New York Times on March 22, 2017. I don't see how Hannah Black can be seen as a "rival artist". In another New York Times article from Jan. 11, 2019 we find similar assertions: "There were calls for the painting’s removal, and some demanded its destruction." Finally, I do like the painting. I find it sincere, honest, and not pretentious. I award credit for straightforwardness. That the artist is white is irrelevant to me. Bus stop (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting us to that entry, because Hannah Black's entry looks like self-promotion to me. Why is there a long list of every obscure essay she wrote and every talk she ever gave? Doesn't that read more like a CV than a wikipedia entry? To me it does. Also, the articles about her establishing her notability are mostly about her role in the Schutz controversy, yet Black's lede doesn't even mention the Schutz controversy. I had never heard of Black outside of that, though I see she has shown in a lot of small galleries (Lisa Cooley, Real Fine Arts, PS122, and Bodega are WONDERFUL but small spaces, and her one thing in the New Museum was according to the link she added a special "presentation of new video works by emerging contemporary artists," not part of a curated show in the main part of the museum). To me she seems like an up and coming artist, and I question her notability as an artist (since most of her notability seems to revolve around this Schutz controversy). Even if she meets notability, doesn't that entry read like self-promotion? Aroundthewayboy (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm still not understanding. What is the objection to the lede of the Dana Schutz article saying:

Her painting Open Casket, when shown in the 2017 Whitney Biennial, drew protests "urging that the painting be not only removed from the show but also destroyed".

That is not a quote from Hannah Black. That is written in the voice of The New York Times. I think it is an encapsulation of a reaction that included the blocking of the painting by a small group of protesters within the museum.

The New Yorker in 2017 writes:

I heard very little comment about Schutz’s paintings that day, but at the public opening, a young African-American artist named Parker Bright, wearing a T-shirt with “Black Death Spectacle” written on the back, stood for several hours in front of “Open Casket,” making it difficult (but not impossible) for others to view the painting. He was joined from time to time by other silent protesters. That afternoon, a British-born artist and writer named Hannah Black posted a letter to the curators Lew and Locks on Facebook, demanding not only that “Open Casket” be removed from the show but that it be destroyed. “It is not acceptable for a white person to transmute Black suffering into profit and fun,” she wrote.[14]

The New York Times in 2019 is saying

There were calls for the painting’s removal, and some demanded its destruction.[15]

And Schutz acknowledges its importance:

The long-term effect of the controversy, she said, is that she has internalized the viewpoints of the protesters even when making new work.[16] Bus stop (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


You and I have already fully expressed ourselves and responded to each others' points. I feel that you are not hearing what I am saying, since I have already addressed every single point you have made in this last comment. We're just going in circles. At this point I think it needs wider input. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hannah Black

Wider input would be beneficial at Talk:Hannah Black#Why is there a section on talks she has given, etc.? Bus stop (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that the recent HB edits were probably a tad premature in timing, but I fully agree with the substance of the edits since the HB page is currently full of self-promotion. Three editors have independently consensed about that, so I would support reinstating the edits you just reversed (i.e., removing the self-promoting fluff that looks like a long list of minor "accomplishments" on a CV) if the current consensus holds for another week or so. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The trouble here is that you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Judicious removal of something might be something I could countenance. But why remove group shows? ThatMontrealIP is saying "group show listings are not so important...I don;t see them as important; what is important are the solo exhibitions. A group show means they had one or two works among dozens in an exhibition; a solo show means the show was devoted to a large body of work. The difference is large." Even individual group shows can be removed for good reason. But this is problematic, in my opinion. Our aim is not to gut the article. And you are replying "I like and support User:ThatMontrealIP's edits". Bus stop (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I support the general thrust of their edits, but I would probably approach it a little differently. I would support replacing the current lists with a short new section in which that information is narrated, more like "she has also been in many groups shows, such as X, Y, and Z." That is actually how gallery shows and other accomplishments are handled on many more prominent artists' entries. Can you imagine if Dana Schutz or Gerhard Richter's entries had complete lists of every single talk or panel they ever did?? As far as lists, Richter's entry has one short list of 6 of his "Solo exhibitions (selection)". Schutz's only lists are 7 "Other solo exhibitions" and 4 awards she's received. The rest of their entries are narrated, with selected examples.
I think most of the information currently on HB's Wikipedia entry belongs in a CV, not in an encyclopedia, so that is the good reason to remove most of this self-promoting fluff. It's not about gutting the entry, it's about only including things that deserve to be in an encyclopedia.
To be clear, I had never heard of HB but actually like her work after looking at it yesterday! In other words, her self-promoting entry kind of worked on me lol. I just don't think WP needs to include a list of every little thing she's ever done. I would happily include an external link to her own web site in which curious readers could see a complete audit of every little thing she has ever done in her life. That's where that level of detailed info belongs, imo. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
This isn't Gerhard Richter. We don't have to hold Hannah Black to Gerhard Richter standards, whatever such standards might be. We are not talking about "every little thing she has ever done in her life". Gallery participation is entirely on-topic in a biography of an artist. Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • This issue is kind of a waste of time and/or unnecessary time sink. Per the Manual of Style for Visual Arts, which is an accepted guideline, "Long lists of exhibitions should be avoided. It will rarely be useful to mention more than five exhibitions. For contemporary and modern artists the venue of exhibitions can be important evidence of notability, but only the most important should be given." Underline only the most important should be given. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Read the policy above. There were perhaps a dozen solo exhibitions already listed, whcih meets the guideline above. Anyway, thanks for starting another time-sinking non-issue discussion. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Why are you removing group exhibitions? So far you have told us "group show listings are not so important...I don;t see them as important; what is important are the solo exhibitions. A group show means they had one or two works among dozens in an exhibition; a solo show means the show was devoted to a large body of work. The difference is large." Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Isn't that an adequate reason. Wikipedia articles aren't CVs. Unless the contribution to a group show is particularly notable (e.g. the artist is singled out for particular attention in a review article) it's unlikely to be of importance. Even the most amateur artist participates in group shows, they're usually not remarkable feats.
For a similar reason I'd be strongly inclined to remove the list of articles she's written (cited only to the articles). That's a classic symptom of using Wikipedia as a CV. Sionk (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Sionk—we edit articles according to reasons. We don't indiscriminately purge articles, that are biographies of artists, of exhibitions that are "group exhibitions". To do so is to indiscriminately edit out a group of exhibitions for no known reason. Your explanation that "[e]ven the most amateur artist participates in group shows, they're usually not remarkable feats" is not intimated in policy. Concerned editors edit articles to improve articles. Concerned editors are not simplistically intent on slimming down articles. If you want to examine the group exhibitions and the solo exhibitions and incrementally remove one or two and discuss those one or two with other editors, that I would consider a proper methodology. I don't think group exhibitions are categorically different from solo exhibitions. Policy is not—at least not explicitly—telling us that such a distinction exists. An artist that is less well-known can understandably be expected to show more exhibitions in their Wikipedia article than an artist that is more well-known. This is because the significance of their contribution to the world of art can be expected to be less well-established. This is not found in policy but we are not bound by policy. I'm not responding in this post to your later-added paragraph because these are I think my primary points and this post is getting lengthy. I think the bottom line is that there is no known distinction between group exhibitions and solo exhibitions, at least not for our purposes. Bus stop (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Well exactly, we edit Wikipedia articles according to reasons - notability, verifiability, balance, avoiding advertising and promotion, removing nformation that is excessive or WP:UNDUE. This isn't indiscriminate editing. If you believe the artist's contribution to any of these group exhibitions was of particular note, then maybe you should add proof. Sionk (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
We don't favor solo exhibitions over group exhibitions. Bus stop (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Bus stop, consensus is against you here, in that no one agrees with your view. There's a whole stack of reasons not to indiscriminately list the group exhibitions, and then there's your view, which so far is only elaborated by WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Why belabour the point? Part of getting along here is recognizing the views of others and going with consensus.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
ThatMontrealIP—you are laboring under erroneous assumptions concerning group versus solo shows. You say on the article Talk page "group show listings are not so important...I don;t see them as important; what is important are the solo exhibitions. A group show means they had one or two works among dozens in an exhibition; a solo show means the show was devoted to a large body of work. The difference is large" and you remove all group exhibitions in this edit. There is no difference, from our point of view, between a group show and a solo show. Perhaps the article could benefit from the removal of some group shows and some solo shows. But it doesn't look like you did that. You simply removed all group shows and no solo shows. This is an article on a lesser-known artist. In an article on a lesser-known artist the exhibition history is more important than it might be in that of a more well-known artist. Well-known artists have established commentary repeated by more than one source whereas such material may be in short supply for the less-known artist. In some cases information can be gleaned by the reader by the exhibition history therefore in this sort of article we should err on the side of including a fair number of exhibitions, whether they be group or solo. Bus stop (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Bus stop, old friend, you are just ignoring the guidelines above, and what the other editors are saying. It is making something out of an extremely small issue that could be solved with a tiny bit of consensus building. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Have a nice evening.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride Art Contest extended to July 31!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride Art & Artists 2019, supported by WikiProject Metropolitan Museum of Art, which has now been extended to July 31. Eligible articles for this sub-contest should use be at least in part about a work in the Met's collection that is by an LGBT artist or has an LGBT theme. You can use the article-draft tool for LGBT artists in the collection, start a new article in the normal way, improve an existing article, or translate something. Winners will be shipped a Met art publication of their choice!--Pharos (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to encourage all the good editors here to join Wiki Loves Pride/2019/Art, which has art book prizes and perhaps not as much competition as you might think. We also have a custom tool to start article drafts for works by LGBT artists that you are very welcome to make use of.--Pharos (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Pharos I can't see where to submit the entries. I've created John Singer Sargent's Splendid Mountain Watercolours from start, 1136 words, won't be online tomorrow and want to submit it, somewhere. Also that article links to the Commons category, Gift of Mrs Francis Ormond which is huge. Is there a way to put all the "Splendid Mountain" works in a separate cat? Thanks. Victoria (tk) 01:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Just at the bottom of [[m:Wiki Loves Pride/2019/Art. Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks JB, I'm a little cross-eyed and couldn't find the link. Looks like I was supposed to sign up earlier and then submit the entry but maybe they'll accept it anyway. Victoria (tk) 01:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Victoriaearle It's officially the last day, but you're very welcome to join now.--Pharos (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019: How to pare down a very large "Articles and exhibition reviews" section

Hello, fellow editors. I seldom edit arts articles, and therefore am at a loss as to how to make a very long list usable. The article in question is Martha Alf. One editor has apparently obtained access to the artist's entire collection of newspaper clippings, art magazine clippings and everything documenting every show Alf has been in, as well as everything written about her, placing it in a section called "Articles and exhibition reviews". While this seven-screen long list would be useful in a book-length biography about the artist, it is far too much for Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I have no sense as to how much of it, if anything, should appear in such an article. If any of you feel that you know how to proceed, it would be of benefit to the article if you might take a look and do some judicious editing. Thanks, Quisqualis (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This is similar to the above discussion. See WP:NOTCV and also the Manual of Style for Visual Arts, which is an accepted guideline, "Long lists of exhibitions should be avoided. It will rarely be useful to mention more than five exhibitions. For contemporary and modern artists the venue of exhibitions can be important evidence of notability, but only the most important should be given." ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Looks good now! I think editors pared it down to the most important elements of her career. I think it's important to trim down these huge CV dumps on Wikipedia, so thanks for that hard work! Aroundthewayboy (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed project page

Would like to suggest that the project do a collab page on the Exhibition of the Impressionists, a major Impressionism topic but, surpringly, one without a Wikipedia page. I've often thought of beginning one but feel that a collab right from the start may be the best idea for building the page. There is pretty good information at the Impressionism page but a fuller article would allow for many images and a more detailed description of the importance of this event. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

What is "Exhibition of the Impressionists"? Bus stop (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Aye, if only time travel existed I'd pack a lunch. It's the common name, from the title of a satirical newspaper review by Louis Leroy, of the initial and historically pivotal 1874 exhibition organized by the artists who would soon be known as impressionists. Impression, Sunrise, which was first shown at the exhibition, was used by Leroy to name and encompass the style shown at the exhibition. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
My ignorance knows no bounds. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Ignorance provides the bliss of discovering a topic like this for the first time. And thanks, my reply to you seems to contain the beginning of a lede. Hmmm. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
It seems that it was held in the studio of the photographer Felix Nadar. The article on Nadar only mentions that "In April 1874, he lent his photo studio to a group of painters to present the first exhibition of the Impressionists." Bus stop (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that's notable enough for Nadar to be placed into the 'Related' section of the {{Impressionism}} template, which I've done and summary noted this page. Still concentrating on the catalogue image in hopes of time traveling, but so far, nothing. Enough here and present on other pages to make an okay stub, which I'll put up as a draft in two or three days unless someone else wants to write up a draft page. Lots already accomplished in this discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Infobox artwork without image?

See discussion relevant to this project at Template talk:Infobox artwork#Category:Infobox artwork without image?. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move at Adelaïde Alsop Robineau

Please see the discussion regarding a proposed title change to the article Adelaïde Alsop Robineau, a ceramic artist. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Call for portal maintainers

Are there any editors from this WikiProject willing to maintain Portal:Visual arts? The Portals guideline requires that portals be maintained, and as a result numerous portals have been recently been deleted via MfD largely because of lack of maintenance. Let me know either way, and thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

New English Art Club

Hi, any objection if the list of "Current NEAC members" and the "Historic NEAC members" come into a colon, alphabetically? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

(Manet) or (Manet painting)

Hello! I have been working on some Manet painting articles and have noticed that there is not really a uniform naming format for the existing Manet pages. There are several ways they are formatted. Examples:

I moved a couple of pages from (Manet painting) to just (Manet) but then I stopped - I want to make sure that I am doing the right thing. So, my question is, in the view of this project, what is the preferred format? Is it (Manet) or (Manet painting)? Further, is (painting) sufficient, or should those be moved to (Manet) or (Manet painting)? Thank you! If you reply to this well into the future, please ping me! Thanks in advance ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I prefer the formulation seen in The Absinthe Drinker (Manet painting). We think should be writing for those least familiar with the topic. I think the formulation "The Absinthe Drinker (Manet painting)" is most self-explanatory of the 4 alternatives presented. Bus stop (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Well yes, if we are writing for the least familiar, I'd agree, it would be a good name. If we are writing for everyone most people would get that the single name descriptor (Manet) probably means a work of art rather than that the absinthe drinker is a fellow named Manet. Adding the word "painting", however, is getting close to having the titles of paintings going a little bit further down the same route that some editors want to take statues, concerned that eventually Painting of an Absinthe drinker (Manet) to be the norm. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I think our articles should be user-friendly. In many ways I think we should emulate Simple English Wikipedia. Would anybody be harmed by the title "The Absinthe Drinker (Manet painting)"? Bus stop (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move at Indianapolis Museum of Art

Please see the discussion regarding a proposed title change to the article Indianapolis Museum of Art to "Newfields". Cerebral726 (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Public art in Boston

Hello, fellow visual arts lovers. Ahead of the upcoming WikiConference North America, which will be held in Boston in November, I'm creating a project page listing public artworks in the city at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sculpture/Boston.

Surprisingly, there were only 6 Wikipedia articles about public art in Boston, before this month. So far I've created Boston Massacre Monument, Equestrian statue of Joseph Hooker, Statue of Charles Sumner (Boston), Statue of Charles Sumner (Cambridge, Massachusetts), and Statue of Wendell Phillips, as well as List of public art in Boston and Template:Public art in Boston. I'll be continuing work on Boston's public art in the next couple months and invite any project members to help out! Could be a fun little collaboration. :)

Thanks, and happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Diwan Manna

There was a lot of out of scope content on the article, Diwan Manna. I have removed it lately. As I don't work in this subject area I am not sure of what exhibitions to be kept and what to be removed. I request some experienced user from this area to have a look and make changes as necessary. KCVelaga (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Views

Perhaps people who watch this page will have interest or views about the deletion of material from an artist's page here. --2604:2000:E010:1100:7C05:FDF3:C711:D726 (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Khalili Collections

Enamelled chariot belonging to the Indian Maharaja of Bhavnagar. From the Nasser D. Khalili Collection of Enamels of the World

FYI

Initial work has begun on this new partnership with the Khalili Collections, a superlative set of private collections that includes the world's largest private collection of Islamic art. This involves MartinPoulter in a volunteer capacity. Twenty-one images, crossing the eight collections, have been freely shared and added to Category:Khalili Collection on Commons, with a total of 1,000 to come in future. The partnership has been covered on the Museums Association web site.
— outreach:GLAM/Newsletter/September 2019/Contents/UK report

czar 12:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a new ongoing discussion about the size of the gallery at Talk:Columbus Museum of Art which may be relevant to all art museum galleries. I pinged Johnbod there to get an opinion besides mine (I lean towards good-size art related galleries as important descriptors of visual art topics, so am biased in that direction), and it may be of interest to others. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Archive_19&oldid=1215066032"