Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! This subject is outlined on the List of basic visual arts topics. That list, along with the other Lists of basic topics, is part of a map of Wikipedia. Your help is needed to complete this map! To begin, please look over this subject's list, analyze it, improve it, and place it on your watchlist. Then join the Lists of basic topics WikiProject!
Archive
Archives


Related discussions:

To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Alphabetize bio pages assigned to categories, e.g., {{DEFAULTSORT:Ernst, Max}}, at the top of the category section so all categories list the article under "E" rather than "M".

Contents

[edit] Image Sizing

Comment on above - (Was it Bob Dylan who said "Keep a good head and always carry a light bulb")? Modernist (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There are differing opinions as to how images should be sized in articles. User:Cacophony has altered the formats of the images so as to make them so small that details cannot be easily seen, he has reverted my reverts of his format changes. I'd like a consensus concerning format and image size from several different editors. I'd appreciate any input from other editors particularly concerning these articles: Rene Magritte, Claude Monet, Paul Cezanne, Edouard Manet, Edgar Degas, and Diego Velazquez. Thanks - Modernist (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style and let users decide for themselves what sizing they prefer. If you have a small screen, then you shouldn't be forceed to view large thumbnails. Likewise, if you have a very large monitor, you shouldn't be forced to view tiny thumbnails. This is the reason that preferred thumbnail sizing was developed, so that users have a choice. And choice is a wonderful thing. What looks good on one person's 30" monitor looks like crap at 800x600 or if you have a visual impairment and set your preferences to display larger text. All things being equal, let the user decide for themselves. Cacophony (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
So far the only pages where Cacophony's new format works relatively ok are Jasper Johns and Toulouse Lautrec. Wassily Kandinsky and Robert Rauschenberg doesn't work because the abstract paintings need to be larger to be understood visually. Until consensus is reached this editor should cease changing the visual arts articles. Modernist (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not know if the enlargements to which we are referring really do look overwhelming on a small screen; they are proportionate on the screens I can access. Though WP:MOS#Images is surely a sensible guideline, it does not specifically address works of art, which just might require different strictures, being especially relevant to the content of these articles. So long as they are not big enough to overwhelm the text, there is a fairly compelling rationale for seeing the images of many of these paintings on a larger scale. They look good, and provide a necessary complement to the written content. Seen in small format as per the guideline, their most vital color and graphic characteristics are often compromised. Incidentally, the guideline does specify that lead images could reasonably be of larger format. For these articles, it makes visual sense to extend such an exception to the embedded artwork as well. JNW (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
This really might merit further discussion. Guidelines encourage that images not be stacked atop each other. In the cause of interesting formatting, it would not require a great leap to justify variations of image sizes, as well. JNW (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
An MOS guideline is not a policy, and as such (quoting here) is "not set in stone and should be treated with common sense". While the guideline on image sizing says that "specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not recommended", this is pretty mild language, and it is followed by some examples of exceptions; it is nowhere implied that the examples given are the only exceptions allowed. Images of works of art that appear in articles about the visual arts would seem to fall into the category of common-sense exceptions. The enlarged images in these articles cause no problems on my 15" monitor. The overwhelming majority of WP readers are not logged in & have no preferences set; probably most of us who are logged in don't have image scale preferences set. Those with impaired vision may experience a slightly less satisfactory display of the text, but they may also appreciate the greater legibility of the images, which (let's remember) are central to the visual arts articles in a way that they are not to articles about politicians or holidays. Ewulp (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It is actually policy that images should normally be thumbnail per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size. This is often ignored. On the other hand, there has in the past been extensive discussion about changing this policy and it has been retained, so it does have weight. I have to go on the side of thumbnails. They give a basic impression and it's easy enough to click on them for the full size image. I find articles aesthetically more attractive with smaller images - and you can get more of them in the article. Tyrenius (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
There's no contradiction here; if you go to Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size the first thing you see is, "See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images for further guidelines", which are as noted not set in stone. Next line: "In articles, if you wish to have a photo beside the text, you should generally use the "thumbnail" option" (emphasis added). My point is that this policy allows for much discretion; it only remains to be decided if works of art are less exceptional cases than maps, charts, lead images that capture the essence of the article, etc.. Ewulp (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

While smaller images certainly have an aesthetic appeal, and galleries are important assets to pages about artists, I think there are certain important assets to having larger images too. Las Meninas and all the complex detail in the painting for example, is benefitted by being larger, or a compellingly expressive painting like Absinthe, by Degas or historically important paintings like Manet's Luncheon on the Grass, need to be seen larger than thumbnail size if only to be studied in more detail. Modernist (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think they should be larger so that they can been seen, then we are in total agreement because that is exactly why I changed them. The vast majority of forced thumb sizes that I have removed are for those that are smaller than 300px (which is my default). If the argument is that the user needs larger thumbnails to appreciate and understand the subject matter, they shouldn't be forced to be *smaller* than my default. If there is an image that is particularly important, then enlarge it to 350-550px, but that dosen't mean that every single image on a page should be that size. Cacophony (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I do agree that certain compellingly important images should be larger and other more ordinary paintings as examples can be of a differing size. We don't disagree there. However your adjustments tend to make every image smaller. At least thats what I see - at Robert Rauschenberg for example. Modernist (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You can change your preference settings! I agree for larger images where detail needs to be seen, if that detail is actually discussed sufficiently in the text. The policy I've referred to clearly states, "In articles, if you wish to have a photo beside the text, you should generally use the "thumbnail" option", and refers to MOS for "further options". Policy is the cornerstone, but we agree there is discretion where needed, so it's just a question of when to apply it. I think it would be easier to look at some cases as they occur at this stage, rather than trying to get some theoretical blanket ruling. Tyrenius (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
If user preferences are the determinant of image size, then all the images on a page will display at the same size (unless forced to a scale over 300px). This is not desirable when comparing works of art of greatly different scales; on the Manet page, isn't it disturbing for Olympia to display the same size as Portrait of Berthe Morisot? The edit by Modernist varies the image scale in a way that benefits the most users (and is aesthetically pleasing for all users). Again, most users are not logged in, many do not have huge monitors on which 550px images recommended by Cacophany will work well within the text. Ewulp (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You can go to Special:Preferences, under the Files tab, and change your thumbnail display preferences. If you prefer larger images then you should set it to 250 or 300px. As for a blanket rule, the MoS section is fairly clear, default thumbs should be used in the absence of a compelling reason to do otherwise. Compelling reasons being: Images with extreme aspect ratios, detailed maps, diagrams or charts, a lead image that captures the essence of the article (recommended not to be smaller than 300px, as this will make the image smaller for users who have set 300px in their user preferences). I think those qualifiers pretty much sum up the concerns. Cacophony (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: Olympia vs. Berthe Morisot, this is where the upright thumb comes into play. An image that is much taller than it is wide should use |thumb|upright| so that the default image size is used for the height rather than the width. Cacophony (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so. Compelling reason #1 the spirit of Wikipedia, and when it counts - WP:IAR, Compelling reason #2 WP:UCS, in articles about the visual arts images cannot all be the same size, we've just established that. When I work on articles with images I use differing px sizes as that makes the most sense. The mechanical attitude doesn't work with art and aesthetics. Modernist (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I was looking at (seen here[[1]]. The result is not good IMHO. Ewulp (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is unacceptable. [2]] thats why we are here. Modernist (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, on the Manet page are a number of paintings meriting enlargement (Olympia, Luncheon, Maximillian, Bar at the Follies), as a means of underscoring both the works' scale and historical importance, all the more so when the notability is explained in the text. JNW (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I never said that all images should all be the same size, I'm saying that in the absence of a compelling reason not to, we should use default thumbnail sizing. I think a compelling reason can be found for a few images on each article, but I don't think one can be found that applies to to every single image of every single article of an entire category of articles. We need to provide the end user with the most amount of latitude to adjust their experience based on the equipment they are using. If there are layout issues that are particular to one article, then lets take it up there, but please understand the importance of user preferences. Cacophony (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Along the same lines, I made a few changes to galleries that were promptly reverted (for example here). The default gallery size of 140px is absolutely tiny when looking at a work of art. I changed them to 200px and increased the width to 4 (<gallery widths ="200px" perrow="4" >). It is slightly too large for 800x600 users, but I think the results are tolerable at that resolution and it greatly increases the value for those with larger monitors. Thoughts? Cacophony (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
See summation section below. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I have not read any of this discussion beyond the topic line. Please don't mess with people's preferences. You who wrote "It is slightly too large for 800x600 users" don't know what they are in my humble opinion. Sorry I probably won't get back to this thread and won't have time to answer questions about this comment (it is an old, old, old topic and changes can't be resolved in Wikipedia—it can only be "resolved", i.e. "changed", by talking to the developers of MediaWiki). -Susanlesch (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I must admit I set sizes less than I used to, I generally agree with the writing editors above - surely the great majority of readers don't have preferences set, or any knowledge that they can. The results of thumb sizing can be very odd indeed with tall thin images (because the size is taken from the horizontal axis) and often have to be overridden. Also, when images are being compared the size may need forcing - look at Amanda's Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes. I must admit I was unaware of some of the points above though - changing sizing to vertical & in galleries etc. I will alert Amanda to this discussion, as I know she has very strong views on this. I can't help noticing that User:Cacophony (the user page) displays really badly on my pc - I have to scroll right to see 30% of the page! In Velasquez, I think Modernist's version certainly looks better - I have tried it at a couple of different preference settings. I would also have reverted the Manet gallery change [here , as it takes them off the edge of my screen, and these changes don't change the size of the actual pictures, just the space of each box - pointless, except for the captions. People might look at my sandbox here, where I have repeated a gallery row at different settings - I would be interested to here how they look to different people on different machines. Johnbod (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely great demonstration Johnbod [3]. I also have the same problem looking at User:Cacophony's user page, which runs off my screen. I'd rather not go to the extra complexities of setting preferences which change anyway with every computer you access.Modernist (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you all actually see the images as different sizes in Johnbod's demo? They are all 120px wide for me, just spaced differently. As an ex-technical writer, I am hopelessly tuned to making a hierarchy of image sizes according to their importance in the text. I do a lot of work in fashion articles, which have many images. I strive for visual balance, which means that images of comparative importance should have comparative "weight" (and t if they have radically different proportions, I will size them so the overall area of the image feels right). My usual habit is to size lead images at 250-300px, subsidiary images at 150-200, and tertiary images in galleries. If I want to discuss a detail of a picture, I'll make a crop that highlights the detail at 150-200px wide and add it to the article. (Example here, where the close-up of slashing and trim in "General Trends" is a detail of an image in a gallery farther down the page. This is also a case where I had a very wide, short image and did some atypical sizing.) - PKM (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
All my demo images are the same size for me too - do they change for anyone else? Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Same size, different spacing. JNW (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitary break

I have written several generic articles on art and architecture. I find that in an article that discusses a string of different points, then the thumbnail format for in-text pics is generally adequate. see Gothic architecture. I have also made extensive use of galleries when making brief reference to a very large number of works. See Stained glass. However, for any detailed discussion of the features of a particular work of art or architecture, these formats are quite inadequate. The person reading the text needs to be able to see the features that one is writing about, without having to open a separate screen at WikiCommons and flick between the two. Reducing the Mona Lisa and the Last Supper to thumbnails in a description of Leonardo da Vinci's greatest works is inappropriate. I attempt to utilise a method that respects the size of an artwork, relative to others reproduced near it, the amount of detail within the artwork that is significant within the context of the article, the placement on the page, and the way it is going to look on screens of various proportions. (I change the proportion of my screen to check this out.)
While some editors of Art articles also have art expertise themselves and take layout into account, many others do not, to the extent of inserting pics or boxes into places where they disrupt text or simply don't fit. While I realise that setting standards is important for setting quality, I cannot see that reducing to thumbnails things that have their life solely as visual objects serves the purpose of presenting Art in an encyclopedia. Neither do I think that the solution of simply producing a larger format for paintings etc is an answer. I think it requires flexibility, a good knowledge of the subject so that the pics really complement the written material, and dare I say, (like most of Wikipedia) creative expertise. Amandajm (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Further to this, there is a presumption among those experienced and highly competent editors that recommend letting every user choose the size of the pics from the option available, that yer average wiki user actually knows how to change the size, knows that they can change the size, and, in their search for info to write a school project, they have the time to fiddle around. Basically, there may be an option, but I, for one, have never used it, and I'm a fairly experienced editor. It's there for the techno-competent. Amandajm (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply following the Manual of Style guidelines and official Wikipedia policy, which I think are pretty clear. If you all don't agree with them, then this is hardly the place to make a change. "Yer average" editor probably has not read the MoS or policies and guidelines, does that mean we should abandon them? Cacophony (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, clearly these Manual of Style guidelines state: However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, ensure that your revision reflects consensus. that editors use WP:UCS in particular to the sizing and placement of works of art is essential. And what we are doing here is trying to establish a clear consensus. I take exception to Cacophony's subjective interpretation of the guidelines. For the record my current preference settings are 800x600px and 180px thumbnail size. Modernist (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
For the first time ever I altered my preferences for thumbs to come up at 300px. They looked very impressive. The trouble is that where there was a forced image size, say 250px. When default thumb renders images at 180px, the 250px images look big. When you set preferences at 300px, the 250px images still render at the forced size and then look small. I found this frustrating, and therefore another reason to stick to default thumb, unless a good reason to the contrary in specific cases. Tyrenius (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I think what we are seeing is that people should be more cautious at forcing images to below 300, as this will make them smaller for (the probably rather few) people with this as their default setting. But the guidelines, which clearly did not give much if any specific consideration to art articles, allow for especially important images to be forced. Cacophany says that most of the forced sizes he removes are below 300, but looking at his edits to Manet, this was not the case - all forced sizes were removed indiscriminately, and the majority -5 - were in fact set at 300. In René Magritte all 3 non-gallery images were at 300. Also some right/left placings are removed, rather against MOS principles. It is hard to see how these sorts of edits, performed en masse and without discussion, can be justified under the policy. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I've also experimented with 300px as my thumb preference and it is ok for thumbs but little else. I prefer the 180px preference if for no other reason than that most users are using 180px. If we design and write articles, I think we should keep most users in mind. I'm also of the opinion that the Visual Arts project should determine our own design guidelines as have other projects: [4] like this one. As Visual arts editors with thousands of edits and experience working on these articles our guidelines should be determined by a consensus of visual arts editors. Modernist (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
For those who don't know it we have this:Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style, which has not gor very far. Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I have been asked to chime in here. I post many images and many of the pages I have created use many images. I work on a 1680x1050 and would like to work on a bigger screen if possible. However, I have been informed that I should layout my images so that they are friendly to a 1024x768 resolution. I do not follow any guidelines on this matter other than what looks palatable. I think the first six pages mentioned above look good at this moment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
"that is with Cacophany's changes reverted (except maybe in the case of Degas). Johnbod (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the images presented in the article Lyrical Abstraction. The article summarizes the problems that arise with lack of image standardization. Maybe it is appropriate to quote Spinoza[1] Happiness is not the reward of virtue, but is virtue itself; nor do we delight in happiness because we restrain our lust; but, on the contrary, because we delight in it, therefore are we able to restrain them. I believe Wikipedia is still the best source of information for a great number of people. Beauty and truth do not need large format to survive. Sincerely, (Salmon1 (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

  1. ^ Erich Fromm, ‘’Man for Himself, An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics,’’ (New York, Reinehart, 1947.) OCLC: 268056. Spinoza, Ethic p.176
How does that work? There are two non-gallery images there, the top one unforced, and the lower at 490px. You seem to object to everything about this article & have filled the talk-page with your complaints, but I don't think you have mentioned image size there. In general I think discussions of image sizes get on fine without Spinoza. Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to repeat myself.
  1. Does the ordinary, non-contributing wikipedia public know about changing their options?
  2. Are we writing for experienced wikipedia contributors or for the whole world? I don't really care if the options are not quite right for those smart people who know how to change them. I'd rather that the pics looked good for the millions of people out there who don't know how to change their options!
  3. Does wikipedia make allowance for "common sense" choices and "exceptions" or doesn't it? If so, isn't it common sense that some visual images may require to be treated differently to others?
I find it really quite offensive that people are trying to enforce a rule which is a "non-rule" because allowances have wisely been written into it. While I agree with Guidelines, the pedantic pushing of a rule that doesn't work effectively in a given context seems foolish. The context discussed here is the delivery of encyclopedic knowledge of the subject of art to a world-wide public. The reason that you know that the rule doesn't work is that the editors of major art articles say that it doesn't and continually work against it. It's not ignorance of the rule, arrogance or bloody-mindedness. It's experience. It's the result of several lifetimes of working with, looking at, teaching and/or writing about, and/or designing and creating art objects, and in my case specifically, delivering knowledge about art objects through all these methods to a very wide public.
  • If this media isn't suited to the material that it is seeking to transmit, then it needs to change the rules about how it's done. but, in fact, as I have already pointed out, the rules are open-ended.
  • An important aspect of Wikipedia is growth. This doesn't just mean in "size". It also means in quality. To do the latter, the structures and rules need to have built-in flexibility (which they have) or a system of review and structured change. Amandajm (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Way forward?' I think it is good for all of us (including Cacophany with his user page that none of us can see properly) to be reminded that things look very different to those with different screens, and different settings. Even those of us who had changed our settings very rarely alter them & can easily forget how things look to others. In particular I think we should think more before forcing images to a figure below 300px, as this will actually make them look smaller to some people, which is probably the opposite of what we intend. Equally Cacophany should accept that his claim that "The vast majority of forced thumb sizes that I have removed are for those that are smaller than 300px" (above) is not borne out by the examples we are looking at here, where he has removed very many of these. The MoS is clear that "a lead image that captures the essence of the article" is an exception to the usual position, but he has removed setting of 300px from several of these. Nor has he shown sensitivity to what are the key works in an artist's oeuvre, nor to how crowded the compositions are - something also excluded as "detailed maps, diagrams or charts" I would say (or rather it should be). Since the MoS has pretty clearly been written entirely without any thought of visual arts articles, I would suggest some of us try to draft some (small) amendments to get art article issues included there, & then bring it back here for discussion. Does this sound sensible? Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it does, and that is very much what I had in mind earlier in this thread, when I wrote Though WP:MOS#Images is surely a sensible guideline, it does not specifically address works of art, which just might require different strictures. That said, I must confess that I am completely ignorant regarding the technical applications of this discussion, of pixels and screen sizes. But I fully support Johnbod's proposal for thoughtful and limited amendments which will encourage flexibility regarding the use of images in art-based entries. JNW (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the idea that the Visual Arts project should begin to develop input to a WP:MoS that pertains to visual art articles. We might also consider including some ideas that pertain to galleries, images, descriptive captions and image rationales as well. If someone can draft a proposal to the idea of amending some MoS visual arts issues as Johnbod suggests, that sounds like a good start. Modernist (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Our own MoS draft is linked to again below; that should eventually cover all topics, & anyone should please add to it as it does not move along much. But I think we should draft some small amendments to the Images bit of the main one, setting out art-relevant exceptions to the usual guidelines. For example "detailed maps, diagrams or charts" are given as a reason for forcing images, but not large and complex paintings. Johnbod (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Visual arts Draft MoS

Is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style, which has not got very far. Please add. Johnbod (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery size summation

Cacophany asked for "thoughts" above. There are now many comments above and at my "demo" on this; it doesn't change the actual image size, so is essentially pointless, and the possible benefits (of layout only) to a few with big screens are surely outweighed by most not being able to see a whole row, even at 160, never mind 200. Or are we all missing something? Johnbod 14:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think we were, as I happened to choose a row with 4 "portrait" format pics. "Landscape" format ones do increase in size - I have now added a second row to the "demo". To me they increase up to 160?, but the pics at 250 don't increase proportionately. But given the comments there, I am dubious it is a good idea to force these, certainly to over 150 - even at 150 many people have to scroll, never mind 200. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the sizing of galleries, you can manually set the size of the images in the gallery, not just the spacing between them. This is explained at m:Help:Images. The code is <gallery caption="Sample gallery" widths="100px" heights="100px" perrow="6">. You don't have to set both the height and width, and perrow determines how many images per row are displayed. In some cases a gallery caption would work better than a section heading. Cacophony (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Boy, what a useless Help page! But you weren't doing that with your changes, which just changed the spacing. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
An example of a modified gallery can be seen here:[5] created by TonyTheTiger. I really think we should determine Visual arts guidelines amongst visual arts editors. While Cacophony is a fine editor I'd appreciate with all due respect his not reverting anymore visual arts articles. Modernist (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Art therapy

I'm clearing a backlog of stub assessments for WikiProject Medicine, and I ran across an article on Gugging. It seemed to me that it ought to have a category to link it to visual arts, but I didn't know which one. So I went to Art therapy, thinking that I would find something appropriate there. However, that article is also missing any connection to art. Can someone here, who knows way more about this than I do, please add an appropriate category to these two articles? I'd really appreciate your help. 03:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatamIdoing (talk • contribs)

There's a category Category:Martial arts therapy. There needs to be Category:Art therapy. Tyrenius (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Middle Ages

Format changes here at the intro to:Middle Ages by FrankB seem awkward, I think input from other editors might be useful. Although they were quickly reverted, just now. Modernist (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be to do with his proposal here, where you can tell him what you think about it. Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Milovan Destil Marković

Moved here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arts#Milovan Destil Marković: B.stegmayer (talk · contribs) has recently created the article Milovan Destil Marković. I've had a discussion with him/her about the lead section of the article, at User talk:B.stegmayer#Milovan Destil Marković and User talk:Aecis#Your request about a change to the Page on Milovan Destil Marković. The lead section of the article contains a number of terms that may be difficult to understand for readers who are not well versed in art terminology. An example: "In his recent work Marković investigates the possibilities and challenges as well as the limits of visual representation in general, but is primarily concerned with the role of the close-up. Marković draws attention to the politics of representation involved in the production of visibility and invisibility of the human face (propaganda or commercial advertisement versus the making invisible and removal from public awareness). Both of these productions are socially conditioned and socially performed. Moreover, as often as not, they are produced in/by public space, where the “ideal face” may be used for fulfilling ideological, propaganda or market purposes." (italics added for emphasis) This reads like a museum brochure. I'm not very well versed in these terms, so I would like to ask the members of this WikiProject to assist in making this article accessible to lay readers. Note: this is not a dispute. AecisBrievenbus 21:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC) I changed the article (by moving the section in question) and hope that it is now clearer. B.stegmayer (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy lifting

(From MoS sub-page) I'm doing some heavy lifting at Western Painting because of the {non-free} tags there and on Self-portrait and History of painting placed by the image hunters....There is a little banter on Talk:Western painting When I finish western painting I'll remove the tags, and start on the other two articles. Any thoughts? Modernist (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I see T has stepped in, much better than I could. Is it really the case that there is a policy saying caption text does not count? Personally I think (as you know) galleries are better with longer informative captions & I see no reason at all (rather the reverse) why this should be less privileged. I'll ask him there. I'm copying this to the main Project talk page if that's ok. - let's continue there. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Free images in Galleries

I am proposing to post the following at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, but thought I would ask comments here first:

At the moment Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Unacceptable_images begins:

[edit] Unacceptable images

The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements usually fails the test for significance (criterion #8), and if it fails this test such use is unacceptable.

- This fairly clearly is intended to refer to the now nearly extinct "gallery articles" rather than internal galleries in normal articles. The policy should be amended to make this clear. My proposed revision:

[edit] Unacceptable images

The use of non-free media in lists, gallery articles (but not galleries within articles), discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements usually fails the test for significance (criterion #8), and if it fails this test such use is unacceptable.

-Galleries within articles are frequently used in overview Visual arts articles, where many images are needed, often accompanied by lengthy captions. There would appear to be no reason why this arrangement of text and images should be treated differently from others. Examples:Nativity of Jesus in art, Self-portrait, Halo (religious iconography).

Thoughts? Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

That won't pass, as "galleries" is intended to refer to galleries within articles, not just articles composed entirely of galleries. This came up regarding sports logos at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2. However, see the message from Kat Walsh on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kat Walsh's statement. The relevant portion states:
Some Wikimedia projects use media that is not free at all, under a doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing". There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Because the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions without having license or permission. Some works that are under licenses we do not accept (such as non-derivative) may meet these conditions. Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace with free media that would serve the same educational purpose.
Note also WP:NFCC#8 states:
Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
Template:Non-free 2D art states the legitimacy of non-free images for:
  • critical commentary on
  • the work in question,
  • the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or
  • the school to which the artist belongs
I believe this is strong enough to at least add something to the paragraph in question above, along the lines of:
Certain visual arts articles may merit inclusion of images in galleries.
Tyrenius (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. See Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Photo_galleries:
Fair use images may never be included as part of a photo gallery, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of criticism or analysis). See Wikipedia:Fair use for more details.
I don't think that it is correct to state that in the policy, as a gallery can in certain circumstances be appropriate for proper use. The policy does not accommodate all the usages specified on Template:Non-free 2D art. Tyrenius (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm indeed! Thanks for the references. Some comments:
  1. I'm not sure the Kelly Martin references are decisive, though clearly they have a bearing - after all he was trying to introduce a new policy:"At the time, however I believed there had been enough discussion, and that it was time to make a declaration of my intent to enforce what amounts to existing policy by creating a new, specific policy: that galleries of unlicensed team logos are not acceptable on league or conference article pages, and to put everyone involved on warning that reverting any edit removing such galleries is a blockable offense.."

It's very hard to see what Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Photo_galleries is saying - it uses the word "galleries" very loosely. Also most of the article examples would appear to have altered considerably since it was written. In purely legal terms it is hard to image that being in a gallery or not has any implications whatsoever per se. I note Bearcat's hardline take on this lower down in the Kelly Martin thing attracted little support, and 2/9 of those supporting it specifically disagreed with the statements as to the US legal position there. How about:

"The use of gallery formatting does not in itself rule out the inclusion of fair-use images, if the normal criteria are met. Certain articles, for example in the visual arts may merit inclusion of images in galleries, where many images are required by the nature of the article."

Johnbod (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The basic argument and definition about what constitutes acceptable images seems to shore up the contention that Visual arts articles need to use visual art material as illustrations in both galleries and articles. There are these:WP:NFC section 2.3. acceptable images and this WP:WPFU, which seems to open the door that the use of visual art - images of relatively recent paintings, prints, photos, sculptures and other works are crucial to visual arts articles especially concerning the art of the 20th century. Clearly fair use rationales are defined as necessary, however I do not see any specific distinction between say a painting used in an article and the same painting used in a gallery in a different article.

Case in point: Persistence of Memory by Salvador Dali which is used in the article Surrealism as it should be because it's an important work, and it is used in a gallery on History of painting as it should be for the same reason because it is an important historical work. I think there seems to be room for discussion, and for different interpretation. A comment on the differences between Team Logos and distinct works of art by artists is also important. If we are discussing Pablo Picasso's response to the bombing of Guernica and we are illustrating that particular section we don't use for an illustration Picasso's Three Musicians whereas with the New York Yankees there is only one logo that suits all and gets the point across. It isn't spelled out clearly and maybe that is why there is still room for interpretation. Modernist (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Also that one knows the Miami Dolphins will have a logo, and actually seeing that logo will not increase the readers understanding in any very real sense, whereas without seeing images it is impossible to understand virtually any topic to do with art - just saying so & so painted in a Foo style doesn't cut it. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes I agree, the Visual arts project needs to begin to define its own guidelines concerning images. Modernist (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree also. It's just a question of getting that acknowledged by a wider consensus. However, the term "gallery" means basically the use of the gallery template, i.e. several (usually 4 or more) images in a row, as opposed to putting the images individually into the article. I think following the Kelly Martin (she, by the way) RfC, team logos in galleries were not allowed. Tyrenius (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe if we push on with our MoS & get that agreed within the project, it will provide a suitable base to start push for the wider concensus? Johnbod (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I definitely think fleshing out the galleries section at the MoS here: [6] will help strengthen the case and shore up the need for the use of multiple image galleries in certain visual arts articles, including some images from the 20th century with fair use rationales. Modernist (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Las Meninas up for Featured Article

People might want to take a look. Happy holidays to all! Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Really well done, congratulations to Ceoil, Johnbod, JNW, Amandajm, Qp10qp, and SandyGeorgia and everyone else who pitched in. Happy Holidays! Modernist (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It has now passed, joining this distinguished company. Thanks to all who rallied round, especially JNW who contributed more than I did I'm sure. Johnbod (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Au contraire! This was really a team effort, as a look at the edit history will show--I think it was Ceoil who dragged me into this one. Congratulations all. It's champagne in paper cups tonight! JNW (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
WELL DONE ALL, CONGRATULATIONS. Modernist (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Amazing job everyone!freshacconcispeaktome 00:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WPVA


WikiProject Visual arts

You are welcome to join WikiProject Visual arts, a collaboration between like-minded Wikipedians in order to improve visual arts coverage.

Type {{WPVA}} to get the above. The background colour is the same as on artist info boxes. Please watchlist... Tyrenius (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portrait of Suzanne Bloch

Somebody better-versed on Picasso than I am may want to inspect this article, where a surprising claim is alleged to be supported by Sutton and Moravia & Lecaldano. There may be some ventriloquism going on here as the one source I have been able to check does not say anything like what it is alleged to say. I've made modifications accordingly, but I still suspect the article of false precision in naming this "the last painting of the blue period" and claiming that a consensus of experts agrees. Ewulp (http://) 05:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No mention

In the 1980 MoMA catalog accompanying the massive Pablo Picasso retrospective on page 56 in the Chronology - 1904 - 1906, it clearly states: "Spring-Summer: Paints last "blue" works, among them Woman Ironing and the gouache Woman with Helmet of Hair, (both p.60).

"In summer, liaison with woman named Madeleine, about whom little is known, although she is probably model for Woman with Helmet of Hair. She inspires the Maternite theme that appears repeatedly in his drawings and gouaches and leads finally to the theme of the Family of Harlequin (pp. 62,63)." - No Mention at all of Portrait of Suzanne Bloch Modernist (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, in two large catalogues accompanying recent museum exhibitions, one on Picasso's early work, and one on his portraits, no mention was made of the Bloch portrait having special chronological significance. JNW (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks to JNW, Modernist, Tyrenius, and Dornicke for helping out here! And best news of all is that the painting has been recovered. Ewulp (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Artnet-wik

A new editor has created a number of pages taken, I believe, from translations from the German wiki. I've tagged most with some copyedit and tone tags. I don't have a great deal of time at the moment to go through them in detail. Some other editors may want to check in and do some work. I don't believe there are too many notability issues, just grammar and tone fixes. I'm sending a note to Artnet-wik so he/she knows this is going on and it's not a personal thing, just some clean-up. freshacconcispeaktome 15:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In at least one of the articles, there might be a COI issue, with the subject of the article being connected (in exactly which way is not entirely clear to me) with the author. The page was taken from a third-party site, and permission was obtained retrospectively. Pseudomonas(talk) 15:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you in advance for your kindly support.

talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artnet-wik (talk • contribs)

[edit] John Michael Wright

I've just written the above article from a redlink. I'd be grateful for any feedback by anyone who knows anything about 17thC baroque portraiture. I've taken this as far as my sources allow, but most of them are historical rather than artistic and if anyone knows where I can get a hold of critical assessments of his actual work I'd also be obliged. It may be obvious from reading this, but I actually know nothing whatsoever about art.--Docg 00:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary Cuban artists

See WP:COI/N#Category:Cuban_contemporary_artists: apparently some spamming going on, but worth a glance to make sure notable ones aren't being binned during the cleanup. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honoré Daumier

Nearly all references and external links to information and images lead to a site called the Daumier Register, a comprehensive source which is also a commercial entity dealing in Daumier's prints, and there have been recent attempts to load the body of the article with links, as well. I've reverted a number of these, but many remain in the external link section, piped to examples of his prints. One is uncomfortable with the thought that an important artist's entry has become a communication and sales vehicle for a dealer. Is a reversion of the remaining links advisable? JNW (talk) 13:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced these links with those to extensive museum collections. Other thoughts are welcome. JNW (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Some trims were certainly in order on grounds that external links within the body of the article, and multiple links to the same website, are discouraged by WP:EL guidelines. Should a single link to this website remain in the External links section? Possibly; it could be argued that the site doesn't contain objectionable amounts of advertising (the marketplace tab is pretty discreet), and might be a worthwhile resource for researchers, curators & collectors. But they do deal in prints, which may be a dealbreaker for the reason you've stated. I'd be inclined to retain one link in EL, but would like to hear what others think. Ewulp (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Although it's not obvious, there remains one 'hidden' link, under Brandeis, which then offers a link to the Daumier Register. I do appreciate Ewulp's recognition of shades of gray in this matter--obviously the Register has much to offer, just not fifteen links' worth. But I'm okay if others see this as a single link worth restoring. JNW (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I think there should be at least one link - the site is exemplary & to my mind essentially non-commercial. I think their self-description as collectors with some surplus items to sell is probably essentially correct, & the amount of work that has gone into the site out of all proportion to any revenue I can imagine. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay. After I 'cleaned up' the many links, someone went in and relinked again several times; I left one, which ought to be enough. The problem here is that a series of anonymous ip's keep creating numerous links not just in the external link section, but throughout the article, which is not only overkill, but gives the impression that someone is trying to sell something. JNW (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, these links are not being done properly - if it were links to specific works discussed in the article etc, that might be different. Johnbod (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Art WikiMarathon

I'm helping to organize a group of artists and art historians to contribute contemporary art additions and entries to wikipedia on Jan 26th. We're all setting aside a day to add as much as information as possible and calling it Art WikiMarathon. So far the people involved are all very net savvy and experienced with wikipedia. We'll be doing our best to create quality content that is referenced, links up other pages, etc. and we'll be editing each others work to improve it. If anyone has any suggestions or would like to participate, please let me know. Dronthego (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Discussions in progress re. limitation of non-free images in galleries and lists. Current disputed wording here. Tyrenius (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What does this March 23 deadline mean to the Visual Arts project? -

"By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted." - the way the EDP is worded on en-Wikipedia, we cannot tell which of our images are compliant or not. And according to Jimbo Wales - "I don't speak for the Foundation here, but as a matter of best practices and with an understanding of the overall goal of the resolution, we should accept in good faith that deadline. "By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted."

Frankly I don't understand what we should do if anything, concerning images before the March 23, date. Modernist (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Plus the relevant judge of what is and is not "acceptable" seems effectively to be the notoriously unreliable Betacommandbot - this is perhaps the main issue here? Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to have a voice, and a means to protect images and editors, in relation to Betacommands interpretations, which often leave room for disagreement, to say the least. Modernist (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to write fair use statements that address all these points. That should suffice until the rules change again. ;) --sparkitTALK 18:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spam wars

Mentioning this just to keep an eye out: two competing commercial galleries [7] and [8] have for months persisted in creating multiple links to California impressionists they represent, sometimes deleting each other's contributions (!) as part of the rivalry. Etacar11 happened upon them months ago; I just discovered their work today. Thanks, JNW (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anything useful come out of this, or is there any reason why they shouldn't both be indef blocked? Tyrenius (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems pretty useless to me. Etacar11 and JNW have done a heads up job. Modernist (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It might be they don't think anyone has noticed, & a block would just make them harder to spot next time. Well done both! Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Under one guise or another, they are apt to try again in a few months. It's not unexpected; the last half year has been a relatively slow time in the business, and it is not easy to pass up a little free promotion. The residual matter is that some of the artists' bios are duplicates of those on one of the gallery's sites--it's as if the gallery (or an interested party) created the articles using their own text, took credit by adding 'courtesy of...', introduced three or four links to their site, and assumed ownership. The question is, do we now tag each such article with a copyright vio? JNW (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
That can be a useful way of losing Spam. "Courtesy of" is no good. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a good idea to let the Spam project deal with them: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam - Modernist (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I've posted this discussion there. Thanks for the tip. JNW (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mona Lisa

Lots of activity here lately, engendered especially by the recent finding which strongly supports the traditional identification. One of the potentially confusing things about the article is the presence of two 'subject' headings, one early on, the other under 'theories and speculation'. Any thoughts on whether these should be merged? (The more I look at it, the more I think it works as is, even at the risk of some repetition). Also, if anyone can think of a better way to include the breaking news, have at it! JNW (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

JNW, thank you for the heads up and welcome news. I can only help as backup if someone else wants to take the lead getting this to GA (possibly a thankless and doomed task given the amount of vandalism the article gets). But I will add the Reuters ref to the Lisa del Giocondo article. A while ago I moved speculation down from the top of the Mona article after the Lisa article was written (maybe it is okay for now but could be moved out to a separate article on speculation someday in the future, I don't know). Again thanks a million. -Susanlesch (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Another contributor added the recent news, which attracted the attention of others, including myself. My goal was just to do a little clean-up and strengthen the references. Overall the article looks pretty good, but if someone wants to work it up for GA or FA, I'd be willing to help, as well. Cheers, JNW (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to the interest here and to the fact it is easier to manage a biography, the Lisa del Giocondo article has been nominated for and passed GA. Your votes are welcome at featured article candidate where it is now. -Susanlesch (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAR of History of erotic depictions

History of erotic depictions has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Zantastik talk 09:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Farrelly and Defastenism

Eyes welcome on these two articles, which have had referenced material removed several times. Tyrenius (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationales

Just an info note. Take Image:Matisse518.jpg. Bottom of page shows 3 articles it's used in. Each article has to have a separate fair use rationale on the image page. Each FU rationale must link to the specific article. See Image:Warhol-Campbell_Soup-1-screenprint-1968.jpg for an example. Tyrenius (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

But where can one pick up the magic forms of words that are the only ones Betacommandbot recognises? Is there a centralized place, or does one have to scavenge examples? Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:FUR is getting complicated, but thanks for the heads up. If there are images that come across that need work lets make it known. I did an image today at Diego Riviera, that Betacommandbot was gonna zap. - Modernist (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Info needed on image page

Yes, basically scavenge. You're meant to write a separate fair use rationale applicable specifically to each usage of each image, rather than just bung in a uniform text. However, a lot of texts will be essentially the same. This is the info to include on the image page:

  • Basic info on painting - title, artist etc.
    • Copyright holder (known, presumed or not known)
    • Where image was obtained from and where (URL or details if book scan)
  • Copyright template. For a painting this will be {{Non-free 2D art}}
  • A separate fair use rationale for each article the image appears in. User the heading ==Fair use rationale== or ==Fair use rationale in [[name of the article]]==. Basic points in each rationale:
    • Used in [[name of the article]]
    • significance, e.g. "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
    • Any other useful info, e.g. famous image for the artist; a painting specifically referenced in the text; an important image to show a particular stage of the artist's work etc.
    • low resolution image
    • not considered to harm the commercial interests of the copyright holder
    • considered to be fair use
    • no known free equivalent available

These are the basics. The above next should be adapted, not copied directly. If I've missed anything, please insert above. Note: images are being deleted with a fair use rationale, because they do not link within the rationale to the article where the image is used. See bottom of each image page for which article(s) the image appears in. If 3 articles, then the page should contain 3 separate fair use rationales, each with a link to one article.

Some useful links:

Tyrenius (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Work published in 1922 or earlier

For an example, see Image:Matisse-Woman-with-a-Hat.jpg. Tyrenius (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ernst Ludwig Kirchner

He died 15 June 1938, so his work will soon fall into the public domain per PD-art-life-70. Tyrenius (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought in legal terms the whole calendar anniversary year was either in or out of copyright - ie free period always starts on January 1? But I might be wrong. Johnbod (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You might be right. It had occurred to me also. I've posted at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Ernst_Ludwig_Kirchner. Tyrenius (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Certianly correct under UK law but not sure if this is common across the EU.Geni 09:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The key point is what is the US law, as the wiki servers are in Florida. Tyrenius (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Then his date of death is irrelivant and it depends if/when the work has been published.Geni 09:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The template PD-art-life-70 says: "The two-dimensional work of art depicted in this image is in the public domain in the United States and in those countries with copyright terms of life of the author plus 70 years or less." (my emphasis) The date of death is the relevant factor according to that. Tyrenius (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that Kirchhner's work enters the public domain in 2009, although technically a case can be voiced in July 2008 that seventy years have passed. Modernist (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems you are right and it is the beginning of the next whole year, i.e. 1 January 2009.[9][10] Tyrenius (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Those rules are so complicated it is mind boggling. Modernist (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Vallen

Please watchlist as there's been a little bit of IP interference. Tyrenius (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:VAwebteam GFDL images at risk of deletion

First they're accused of COI for being from the museum; now they're accused of violating GFDL for not being from the museum. See Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_January_30#Image:Copper_snuffbox.jpg. Tyrenius (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beryl Cook

New user(s) adding stuff verbatim from berylcook.org bio, claiming to be Portal Gallery / Jess Wilder (gallerist there). Either copyvio, or a genuine newcomer needing a gentle cluebat on sourcing protocol and COI issues. 86.139.253.238 (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Portal Gallery indef blocked for non-permitted name (of an organisation). They'll have to choose another one. I've done some cleanup. Tyrenius (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cuban artists: 145 articles being considered for deletion

Nearly all of the articles in Category:Cuban contemporary artists were created by a single editor last fall, who we think was trying to promote all the artists registered at a particular web site, http://www.cubanZZZZZZcontemporaryart.com. This case was reviewed at the Conflict of interest noticeboard last December. These articles arrived here because of spam, but perhaps some of them should be kept. Someone who knows about art could help. Add your thoughts or opinions at Category talk:Cuban contemporary artists if you think you could help evaluate any of these articles. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have created User talk:72.75.72.63/Cuban artists as a checklist for the remaining 117 articles ... two have been deleted since I created the list (one as a A7 speedy delete), and more may go redlink as uncontested dated PRODs expire ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 03:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liz Cohen

Discussion on external link at Jimbo's talk page. The article is on a conceptual/installation artist. Tyrenius (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template talk:Infobox Artist#Famous works

Comments requested at the above. I propose changing the wording on {{Infobox Artist}} from "Famous works" to "Key works" (or something similar). I changed it, but it's been reverted and another editor has asked for wider input. It is also a chance to discuss other fields and whether any should be removed or whether more should be added, such as "web site", "major shows", "gallery" etc. Please put a new heading to discuss each proposal separately. Tyrenius (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Please post on template talk page for comments directed towards that particular template. As for usage of it, I believe it is expected that such templates will be the norm, but don't ask me where that was established. Probably some project on infoboxes. Please note that not all the fields have to be filled out, so if "movement" isn't suitable, leave it blank for a particular artist. The only obligatory ones are name and birth date (otherwise the template doesn't work). Tyrenius (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it was the evil power-mad Biography project (just kidding! keep up the good work guys). The draft Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style - as always, comments & additions welcome - covers the matter. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Proposed_structure_guideline relevant to artist bios. Tyrenius (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

How important are infoboxes? I'm ambivalent about them, I noticed that User:Outriggr removed the Picasso infobox today. They seem awkwardly formal to most articles, and only occassionally relevant. Modernist (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Check this out: Category:People infobox templates. There's a widespread consensus for their use. I've not been that keen on them for a long time. Recently I tried some out, and it made sense to me. It means an article contains three levels of information. The main article has everything in depth. The lead is a summary. The infobox contains the key points. It enables readers to have a choice, depending on exactly how much information they need. The infobox saves them having to dig out the bare bones from the text. I also noticed the Picasso infobox removal and I think it will have to be reinstated. I didn't do so, as I thought someone might like to check through the substantial edits that went with it. I'm not sufficiently up on the article myself, but I did have some doubts. For example, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names says the full name should be in the lead: it's been moved to the start of the main article. Tyrenius (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

We obviously have the choice of the artist box, or a painting box, or no box at all. Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style is the place to get this project's particular view across. Writing mostly about PD art, I think they waste valuable space needed for pictures. Also they tend to be filled out (or used to be) by editors with no specific expertise & very often inaccurate - especially as to "movement" "influence" etc. We should at the least strongly resist any move to make them obligatory or semi-obligatory in visual arts articles. I have no problem at all with them for films, sportspeople, taxons etc., where they are very useful. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Johnbod (talk) for the most part, although concerning Picasso, the lead seems empty without the box, I'll try to carefully look at the new edits there. Modernist (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is much choice and the Visual Arts project can't stand alone on the issue. Featured articles are the standard for the best work. I checked out the last 4 biogs to make the main page. They are, starting with most recent (and with date they became a FA): Ronald Reagan (25 Aug 2007), Archimedes (23 Oct 2007), Daniel Boone (Sept 2006), Jack Sheppard (10 Feb 2007). The first three have infoboxes, but the last doesn't (note though that it was promoted to FA a year ago).

I checked out the most recent bio articles to be promoted to FA, and they do all have infoboxes: Giovanni Villani, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Pauline Fowler, Eardwulf of Northumbria. My observation is that there is a growing expectation that infoboxes are a standard part of an article and should be included (when the article reaches a reasonable size, that is).

It would be best to take responsibility for doing it, so it becomes an accurate extract from the article, or else someone will come along out of the blue to do it, and they may not have the in-depth knowledge to do it as well.

Tyrenius (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this came up at either FAC or FAR recently, and either Raul or Sandy confirmed there was no requirement to have an infobox in an FA. Does anyone have the reference? There is also the issue of which infobox - painting or bio. We should certainly be free to choose. Someone adding one out of the blue can always be reverted. In fact there seems less of this than a year ago. Johnbod (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note the most recent FA on a painter - Robert Peake the Elder - promoted a few days ago, has no infobox, & the question was not even raised at FAC. Johnbod (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I do think that if there is an infobox in a biog it should be the artist one, and the painting infobox should be for an article on a painting. For reasons I've already stated, I think infoboxes serve a valuable purpose, and it is preferable to use them. Tyrenius (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
My feeling is that infoboxes on artists like Picasso, Matisse, Miro, Modigliani, Titian, Da Vinci, Botticelli, Monet, and other well known artists work reasonably well. The infoboxes on somewhat lesser known artists, and contemporary and new artists seems forced, and are usually redundant, and somewhat useless. I will use them, however I think they should remain as optional items. I agree that it is better to take responsibility for it, so as to make them as accurate as possible. I don't like the idea of deleting working infoboxes like the infobox on Picasso was, unless there are very serious reasons why they shouldn't simply be corrected. Modernist (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
People feel, perhaps wrongly, you have to use a pic of the artist in an artist box. Many artists don't have good pictures of them, and using a painting would be much better, with the poor image lower down. Perhaps fortunately, many of the artists I do have no images of them surviving. Most heavily bearded 19th century artists would be much better off with a good painting at the top - they all look the same anyway. Other encyclopedias tend to follow this pattern in my experience. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Another example - DYK just now - George Cooke (painter) - best practice? I think not! Johnbod (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moribund projects

This project is active. Two others aren't. I propose formally marking them as historical, so efforts can be focused here. Comment at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Painting and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contemporary Art. Tyrenius (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please put (or copy) all comments on the project talk pages, so there is a record there (on the projects facing closure, I mean). Thanks. Tyrenius (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlo Frigerio

People may like to look at this debate, which is raising important issues as to the notability of minor old master painters. It's currently finely poised, so your view will matter! Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got a couple of essays in the prototype stage as a result. Input welcome at User:Tyrenius/Historical systemic bias and User:Tyrenius/Historical artists. Tyrenius (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe per WP:HART that minor historical artists such as Carlo Frigerio have a place on wiki, but it is a question of where. Probably a lot of stubs is not the best way, and these are susceptible to be picked off with some form of deletion. I see two alternatives. One is to place the info with their better-known master in a section on his pupils. The other is a list, such as List of minor 18th century artists. They are not mutually exclusive. The article then becomes a redirect, but can be recreated if sufficient material is added. Tyrenius (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Over the last two months I've been having an on again, off again disagreement about whether Robert Walter Weir should or shouldn't be included as a Hudson River School artist (on the talk pages of both articles). I've included him and the argument against him began primarily because he was not included in a relatively recent exhibition at the Metropolitan, and therefore he wasn't important enough to mention. Yesterday one of those arguing vehemently for his deletion uncovered a vast trove of references attesting to Weir's being an original first generation Hudson River School painter, having been included in books, articles, and exhibitions in the past - but few lately. Which made my case but which brings up the problem - El Greco disappeared for centuries, Van Gogh was obscure in his own time, as were Cezanne, and many others; the documentation of so many artists is really awful and arbitrary and academic and anathema to art. Perhaps we should rethink the standards. If an artist falls into obscurity like some of these old Italian historical painters have, perhaps we can create a new standard or some new designations of notability. Modernist (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
El Greco was never so obscure that general histories of painting did not have a few words of abuse for him - see Posthumous fame of El Greco. He would always have been easily notable. The problem is well illustrated by Frigerio - not in the Getty List (120,000 artists!) which I presume means not in Thieme-Becker or Benezit, which of these does he meet (from WP:BIO):
  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. Certainly not
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.Certainly not
  • The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. No sign yet
  • The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries His best chance, and notable palace frescos would of course do, but evidence slim so far
He was apparently just a working dude around his home town; as we know Italian churches and palaces are full of very uninspired painting by his ilk. If the thesis industry hasn't caught him yet there is probably a good reason. I'm very open to both adding him to his master, which should always be done (and has been here) and to a list. But I think there are too many 1-line stubs, mostly for British and Italian baroque-onwards which never get expanded. Meanwhile many very important early northern artists have no entry. Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm maybe we should make a movie, it did wonders for Camille Claudel and Artemisia Gentileschi. :) The problem is as you say one line stubs and so many worthy important artists with nothing as of yet. Modernist (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

There's a user box for editors with rollback: {{User wikipedia/rollback}}. Tyrenius (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Goldsworthy images

One Night In Hackney has pointed out a number available on flickr.com if anyone wants to use them. Tyrenius (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Book of Kells

Book of Kells has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

[edit] Visual arts infoboxes

I was hoping to find, request to be made, or make myself some infoboxes for art movements and/or art groups. Is there anyone who's familiar with creating these able to throw one together, or could at least point me to the proper how to page so I can see if I can do this? freshacconcispeaktome 16:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think there are too many infoboxes already on VA articles. Templates at the bottom of the page are usually preferable. I know how to take them out, but not how to make them. Sorry. Johnbod (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Prototype at {{Infobox Art Group}} with documentation which is transcluded onto it at {{Infobox Art Group/doc}}. I've based it on Infobox Artist and have changed some of the obvious parameters, but have not worked properly on them, so this needs to be done before they are put into use. Basically you have to change the template and the doc so they match each other. Tyrenius (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I just did one the other day at James McNeil Whistler for practice. I copy and pasted one from another page and then changed the text, image and details....It takes a little getting the hang of, which I haven't quite yet, I don't like em, but I'll do a few others. Modernist (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, by the way, Ty. That's helpful. When I have some extra time, I'll look into suggesting some parameters, if this hasn't been done already. I like them, myself, but I'll try not to get carried away. freshacconcispeaktome 01:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geographical coordinates

Someone thought it would be useful to supply geographical coordinates for paintings - see Van Gogh's Cafe Terrace at Night. I'd consider this nonsense, I even doubt that a photograph could be classified in this terms - see Sugimoto. Please let us stop this in time! rpd (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Article is about a painting, not a place. Ty 01:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Project initiative

I thought it might be good to work out a list of "Major artists needing a major overhaul" here and then add it to the to-do list at the top here, or the project page. Articles that are either very short, or mostly EB1911 material, or need expansion or clean-up. It has been depressingly easy to find a few to start the list off. Please add comments, or just links to the list. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Draft List

[edit] New Articles

As part of my complete and comprehensive rewrite of Hans Gude, I have created two new articles within the scope of this project. The first was Nødhavn Ved Norskekysten which appeared on the front page under "Did You Know?". The second one is List of paintings by Hans Gude which I have just finished (as much as I can). I would appreciate any spelling and grammar help people can offer, as well as anything you think you can add! Cheers! --Falcorian (talk) 07:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD - upmerge of Category:Statues to Category:Sculptures proposed

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_10#Category:Statues

Suggest merging Category:Statues to Category:Sculptures

FYI Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old Magazines

Greetings, WikiProject Visual Arts! I am Cryptic C62 from Wikiproject Chemistry. I went to a massive low-price book sale today and found two old magazines with some articles you mind find interesting:

If any of you are interested in using these magazines as sources, or if you're simply curious, I am offering to ship them at no cost other than the shipping charge. I have a complete list of the articles in each magazine, and will gladly provide any additional information needed. Anyone who is interested should respond on my Talk Page. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Tylman

Could we have more eyes on the Richard Tylman article? It's come up at WP:COIN as strongly suspected confict of interest, but sourcing is also a major issue: what is acceptably sourced from bios from the artist's own website, and what demands external verification? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tomb of Antipope John XXIII

Donatello and a pal, in the Florence Baptistry. FYI

Johnbod (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese artists up for AfD

There's a whole heap of articles about Chinese artists up for AfD at the moment. I haven't put them onto Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts because of the numbers. Most are clear keeps already, but there are a few borderline cases that might be worth looking into or adding to the Visual Arts deletion sorting:

--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Julio Ducuron

Just came up at WP:COIN. Notable? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

He appears notable due to his museum presence (although this would need verification). He's had some museums shows outside of Argentina, in Italy and the US. This would need more sourcing, as I'm guessing there's not much in English. The article itself needs some major editing. freshacconcispeaktome 02:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giorgio de Chirico

Has anyone noticed the edit war going on between IP's here; seemingly over several months, about whether he's Greek or Italian or both? I'm observing from a distance, because I don't know the answer. If someone has a clear answer then maybe check it out. Modernist (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • According to the Dictionnaire abrégé du Surréalisme, edited by Breton and Eluard and first published in 1938 by Georges Wildenstein's Galerie des Beaux-Arts (Reprint: José Corti, Paris, 1991, p. 7), De Chirico is born in Greece, to Italian parents (né en 1888, en Grèce, de parents italiens). --rpd (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Hiroshima Panels

Maruki Iri and Maruki Toshi both currently redirect to The Hiroshima Panels, the set of works for which they are most famous. As much as I like referring to people by the traditional (Japanese) name order, I do believe that the manual of style dictates that people born after 1868 are referred to by Western name order. If anyone is interested in creating biography articles for these two artists, under Iri Maruki and Toshi Maruki, or for that matter, under some combined article title, such as Iri and Toshi Maruki, and then fixing the redirects, I think it'd be great. Cheers. LordAmeth (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template talk:Infobox Artist#Proposed tweaks

Please comment on that talk page, not this one. If you're OK with these (minor) changes, it would be very helpful to say so there. Thanks. Ty 12:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blanc-de-Chine or Dehua porcelain

A merge proposal is initiated by User:Marshall46 on the below articles.

  1. Blanc-de-Chine
  2. Dehua porcelain factories
  3. Dehua white porcelain in Japan

I think these three articles should be merged to one article because The three are overlapped and all at start status. I think Blanc-de-Chine could absorb the others but I'm not sure this French title is "common name in English speaking world for the porcelains produced in Dehua. According to Britannica it is named as "Dehua porcelain". If there is anyone interested in the subject, please give your input at Talk:Blanc-de-Chine. Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Van Gogh template colours

Discussion started at Template_talk:Vincent_van_Gogh#Colours. Ty 04:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Art Manual of Style

I think this is ready to go "official" for the project. Of course further development would be most welcome, but I think we have enough now. Please raise any detailed issues on the talk page there, but comment on going live here. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Support as nom. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jose De Creeft

I have created an article for Jose de Creeft, who I think more than meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. I plan on, eventually, adding to the article; including an image if I can find one that is okay for Wikipedia.....and if I can figure out how to do it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep; notability looks no problem. There are plenty of book references.
But I advise that, just to be on the safe side, you be cautious about conflict of interest re this topic [11]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
You are going to have to spell that out for me. I studied with DeCreeft for close to four years at the Art Students League in the early to mid 1960s, and I have a lot of respect for him as an artist and as a person....but, since I have nothing gain from an article about him, just where is the COI? Anyhow, this is Wikipedia and anyone who thinks the article lacks balance is free to add what is necessary for creating balance. If there is a problem with lack of balance in an article that is best corrected by having multiple editors with differing points of view, and that is the reason I put the information about the article on the WikiProject Visual Arts talk page. If you, or anyone, sees something that seems POI, please correct it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have explained more clearly. You haven't done anything wrong, and emphatically no insult is intended. A present or past close professional connection with the subject of the article is, simply, a standard area for caution, and you need to be aware of the options and suggested editing practices in WP:COI. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not feel insulted. Certainly, if there is anything in this (or any other) article that is not neutral, it should be corrected. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a good start. There is more here [12]. I studied with Mr. De Creeft for one month, late in his life. JNW (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, what's this - Two Degrees of Jose de Creeft? I've added images to it now. Smithsonian has "de" not "De", so I moved the article. Ty 03:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Very good! Once it seemed that everyone in the U.S., or at least in NYC, taught or studied at the Art Students League of New York, so a popular teacher could, over the course of a long career, instruct thousands. JNW (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Textile Arts

This portal is currently undergoing its second Portal Peer Review, and your comments/feedback would be appreciated at the portal peer review subpage. Cirt (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unilateral overhaul of Édouard Manet

Any thoughts on User:Mangostar overhaul of Édouard Manet and the somewhat empty template he's created? I'm tempted to reverse his changes, but I'm open to other input before I do. I think the gallery belongs in the article, and I'm going to reinstall it, among other issues. Modernist (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plea for help with Trojan War in art and literature‎

This is a request for help over at Trojan War in art and literature‎. This list until very recently was lacking any material on the fine arts. If anyone knows of depictions of visual episodes from the Trojan War with articles, or which ought to have articles, then please add them to the list.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Does the Judgement of Paris count?--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Or Leda and the Swan? Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I certainly would regard the Judgement of Paris as part of the story of the War and had looked to see whether the Rubens version had an article. His choosing Aphrodite was a prelude to the rape/abduction/elopement of Helen and determined what sides the three godesses were on. I'm not sure whether going back to the conception of Helen and sibs is too early. But that's just my opinion and a number of narrations of the war do start then or earlier. ANyway thanks for thinking about this.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The Laocoön, c.1610-1614, a painting by El Greco is a great picture.from the The National Gallery of Art Modernist (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ľudovít Lehen

Members of the WikiProject are asked to help ascertain the notability of Ľudovít Lehen at this AfD. Many thanks. --Dweller (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Mirth & Girth; also, I need a word

A request has been made to evaluate Mirth & Girth for completeness at Talk:Mirth & Girth#RFC for completeness of article. In addition, I have an open question as to how to label certain elements of the painting. It's better explained at Talk:Mirth & Girth#I'm looking for a word. Thanks! —Rob (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Labelling done.[13] Ty 23:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oil painting discovery

I just noticed this [14] on the Wikipedia main page today. I am not familiar with the articles on the history of painting, but it might be interesting to include this information someplace. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting find. I added the wikilink to the new refs on Oil painting. Modernist (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abstract art and Dankany

There's an editor working under at least one account and one IP address making some major changes to the Abstract art page. He seems to have a specific issue with me (although it was actually Modernist who reverted one of his changes initially--but I got the blame!). Anyway, I won't wade into this yet as this editor may not respond well to my input, but there seems to be some major manual of style issues as well as unsourced info being added (keeping in mind that this article had problems to begin with). If anyone could drop in and have a look at his changes and maybe send him a friendly welcome, it might help. Again, I'm reluctant to do so as it may seem provocative on my part. freshacconcispeaktome 18:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree, some of the comments are beginning to look like an attack against freshacconci I'd best not step in for similar reasons, however the IP additions or the ones by Dankany are not helpful, or referenced. I'll keep the idea in mind though and if the attacks continue I will step in. This article needs expansion. Modernist (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note for the editor. Ty 01:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template talk:Infobox Artist#Template colour

Please contribute to the discussion on the above page about the template colour. Post there, not here. Ty 01:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese painter Pu Ru

I see there's a discussion here about deleting articles about Chinese artists, so I hope it's not a problem that I created a stub about Pu Ru. B7T (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no problem with anything that's notable and verified with references. Ty 02:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#New proposal on images

There's a discussion on image sizes at the above page. Ty 00:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)

There is some debate about the proper formating for the Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell) infobox. Recently an editor has merged the four images into one for the current infobox which has the four individual paintings captioned below the whole group. Formerly, I had the infobox arranged so that each of the four images was visible (see this infobox). I think the former layout looked better. I need some outside opinions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the former version. It's a much cleaner look, and I prefer having the captions directly below each image. The black bars in the new version seem heavy and unattractive. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I like the first version for its quiet unobtrusive presence; and the second version for it's matter of fact succinctness; and I'm leaning towards a larger first one...The second version is at 310px, try the first version at 150,152,152,155px, instead of 120,122,122,125px...That's my first choice. Modernist (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
First version, for specific captions and removal of black borders. JNW (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Kafka Liz: the black borders are distracting (and blend into the works themselves). freshacconcispeaktome 13:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I just realized we are allowed to alter fair use images, so I am going to crop the random whitespace from the images after I revert to the old format.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Art in Context

Any thoughts on this: [15]? Artincontext has been adding the link to a number of article. Obviously, there's a WP:COI issue here, plus an iffy username. Is this spam? Does anyone know about this organization. They appear to be a non-profit, but they provide links to commercial galleries. I'm not sure if this is a grey area or not, spam-wise. freshacconcispeaktome 16:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell if the galleries that are included pay artincontext.org? If they are equitable giving information that is one thing, but if they only include galleries that pay support their non-profit endeavor, that is another.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Basically it's spam. Modernist (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Modernist here. I don't see what inclusion of this link would add to articles. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have reverted these several times. I think he (or someone) does a pass every few months. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell) part 2

Since so many people took an interest in the formating of the infobox, I guess I will ask about the other disagreement I had with a second editor. Please comment on this edit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the diff on the left, Mr. A leaves out too much valuable information. Modernist (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Though I'm not usually conversant in the ways of categories, it seems that at least some of the reverted cats are relevant. JNW (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Chiming in for more categories, rather than fewer. Many of the eliminated categories should be kept. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Funerary Monument to Sir John Hawkwood

It has been mentioned at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Funerary Monument to Sir John Hawkwood that this article could benefit from an "expert" taking a look at it. I'm sure the comments from anyone from this WikiProject would be welcomed. Savidan 01:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Descriptive Titles

I just learned of the descriptive titles exemption for title bolding as per both WP:LEAD and WP:BOLD. I am having trouble deciding how to handle Demi's Birthday Suit and More Demi Moore. I have unbolded the "Month YYYY Vanity Fair cover" version of the title. I am not sure what I should really do for these titles and stopped with that change. Does anyone have any advice on how to properly handle the bolding.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that really applies in these cases; the titles are strictly those of the articles rather than the photos, and ideally the photos being so described could be referenced, but otherwise bold seems reasonable to me. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would go with the bolding. It's not a descriptive title. If people are likely to do a search, create a redirect/redirects as well. Ty 04:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help need on Chronology of works by Caravaggio

I am attempting to slowly bring the Chronology of works by Caravaggio up to Featured List status. Any help would be appreciated. Remember (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "The" in article titles

I have added a bit to what we had before in the [Arts Manual of Style], and would be interested in the comments of others. Actual articles seem to be all over the place, so it would be good if we can agree a standard. The main MoS Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(definite_and_indefinite_articles_at_beginning_of_name)#Titles_of_works_and_publications does not covers art-related issues very well. For example, the following titles all seem wrong in respect of "the" to me:

but I am ok with:


and not sure about:

What do people think? Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the The is usually important. But not always, like the film - Picnic, wouldn't work as The Picnic. I prefer The Night Watch to Night Watch (painting) but it's a case by case problem. When in doubt use the The. Modernist (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military and War Categories

Am having problems finding my way around some things... Found there is a Category:War art and Category:Military art was wondering what the difference is meant to be - if there is meant to be one could someone add a bit of explanatory text of what should go where? For instance I wondered why Guernica (painting) was in Military art and not War art.-Hunting dog (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • "War art" is a subcat of "Military", but, as often, the distribution of actual articles seems very erratic. Many, like Guernica, should be moved between the two. Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - If they are meant to be distinct can I assume that the Military Art category should be things like portraits of officers and scenes relating to retained armed forces / navy on parade / movement etc, so including peace time scenes and War Art be just the actual battle scenes? Does that make sense. Is anyone likely to moan if I move Guernica and similar things around categories on that basis?-Hunting dog (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Absolutely not. But, say, a "Retreat from Moscow" is a war scene, even if no actual shooting is going on in it. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


I noticed that Military Art has no link to heraldry, but perhaps should because the origins of heraldry are military, and there is still some connection. (It looks like it a good article too.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added that to the see also of the Military art article - along with the subsection of Horses in art I was working on. Military Art seems like somewhere people looking for heraldry might end up so that seems reasonable to me. (unless anyone else has good reason why not) -Hunting dog (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Augustus Heber

I have had to delete almost the entire content of this article as a copyvio (see here). I've also reclassified him as American (though German-born) as his career seems to have been entirely carried out over here. He is obviously important, but I haven't been able to find material to quickly cobble something together. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Mangoe (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BP Pedestrian Bridge

The BP Pedestrian Bridge is one of the most beautiful bridges in the world. Is it a work of art? Should it have a template for this project on it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Bridges are usually regarded as architecture, however sculptural. It is very nice. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
That was my initial decision on the article's talk page where I removed the template. However, after seeing the new main image, I was wondering if there are exceptions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Template

An editor has added this to several articles: [16], I removed them pending consensus. I'd appreciate any thoughts. Modernist (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • In MHO they mix apples, pears, walnuts, oranges and hotdogs together...not as subtle as they might be. Modernist (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think that this template is either necessary or terribly helpful. The relation between the subjects just isn't close enough to warrant a template. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Images

User:Simonfieldhouse has added a large selection of his handmade Artist cards as lead images to infoboxes. I enjoy some, dislike some, and I wonder if they should be leads in the infoboxes or simply added to the article text where appropriate. Any opinions? Modernist (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Whilst most of the ones I've seen seem appropriate for their pages - it does open up more general questions about user made content. If the user works as an artist or photographer and licenses the images under their real name (and with links to their website as with these), how do we police the borderline between having a useful free image and giving the maker free advertising? Is there any guideline around about that? Its giving me horrible visions of 'helpful' artists uploading their local scenes to illustrate town/village pages etc... -Hunting dog (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Overall, I don't particularly care for them. Their inclusion feels like self-advertising to me, and might even be considered original research. I particularly don't approve of their inclusion on the pages of individual visual artists, whose pages are, I believe, better illustrated by their own work. I also think they don't belong in articles whose subject is already illustrated by a photograph. Hunting dog's question about guidelines bears further investigation. How do others feel? Kafka Liz (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
A while ago an artist uploaded his drawings of Picasso and others and added them, it was tacky and they were deleted. I don't mind these "artist cards" but I don't think they should be lead images...Hunting dog's point about advertising and not encouraging more of the same is a good one. I'm removing those from the lead infobox that I find, that have been replacements for either artist works - like David Hockney or photographs like the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Modernist (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I think his additions for Harold Ross and Dorothy Parker are fine additions. They are high quality and a good representation of the subject. For articles that have no image of the subject, they are they only illustration to the article. I definitely do not think they fall into the realm of original research, since his art, on these 2 people, is based on photographs. I think it would be a narrow view to put a stop to adding these images. K72ndst (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
"Based on photographs" adds a new layer to the issue. User:Postdlf raises the point here that there may be copyright issues surrounding the drawings because they are based on copyrighted photographs. Basically, if we can't use the actual photograph, we can't use a drawing of it either. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
In the case of specific visual artists like Francis Bacon, David Hockney, R. Crumb, Andy Warhol, Chuck Close etc. it's better to let their own work speak for itself...If there is a photo as the lead photo of Claude Monet it's usually historically interesting and should be left in place...I can see the cards as addendum illustations...I don't object per se to the use of the illustrations provided they are tagged correctly and placed in the articles in which they are useful and apropos without replacing better or more accurate information.. Modernist (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
That's more or less how I stand on the issue, just to be clear. I think the copyright issue perhaps ought to be looked into, though. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I am pretty strongly against their use in almost any context. They all have his name, so raise COI & self-advertising issues as well as the copyright ones. I haven't seen any that improve on a photo of the artist or other subject or one of his works. Furthermore, looking at the Harold Ross one as an example, there is no permission given that I can see, so he is presumably retaining all copyright, which means they should not actually be used here without a specific permission, as fair use rationales are unlikely to apply. Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have read and acknowledge all the above comments. The "Art Cards" were created by me and posted in good faith and never intended to cause controversy. They were intended as "whimiscal portraits" which might add a different more abstract element to the subject in addition to words and photos. Of course I respect the policies and views of Wikipedia and it contributors and suggest the images be removed if anyone feels uncomfortable. Many thanks.Simonfieldhouse (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
A strict interpretation of WP:OR would allow few user-created images at all. (All maps, graphs, drawings, &c. would be out.) However, the WP:OI section implies a more relaxed standard for images placing the burden of proof on the party challenging the veracity of the image. Technically, artistic drawings are no different that photographs in that both use subjective means (artistic licence vs. camera settings &/or photo editing software) to interpret information and translate it into pixels to appear on a screen. — AjaxSmack 03:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spotlight

Spotlight
An article covered by this WikiProject, Michaelangelo, is currently under the Spotlight. If you wish to help, please join the editors in #wikipedia-spotlight on the freenode IRC network where the project is coordinated. (See the IRC tutorial for help with IRC)

...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 11:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)