This page is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts
There's plenty of it there, it just needs categorizing - bearing in mind that if "public art" is taken to mean outdoor sculptures, there was loads on temples (much now in museums) but few secular sculptures before the arrival of the British. Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, like some things in Category:Statues in India should be incorporated into public art-related categories. But, you make a good point in general, Bri. I tend to focus on public art in places I've been, but I'll keep this in mind. Definitely much work needed in this area. ---Another Believer(Talk)19:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation recently suspended meta:Wikimedia India. Simultaneously, Google paid the WMF USD$1 million to develop Wikimedia content in India through meta:Supporting Indian Language Wikipedias Program. There is not any WMF publication to make sense of this, but it seems like the WMF investment is jumping from about $US50k year to something higher, but without a Wikimedia chapter. I expect that this should mean increased engagement in all the staple projects like Wiki Loves Monuments and the public art projects, but I am not sure. India has a solid base of highly experienced Wikimedia community contributors who would appreciate support, either through WP:India or by reaching out to any of the about 20 meta:Wikimedia movement affiliates in India which do still have official status. Blue Rasberry (talk)20:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Marcel Duchamp, Surrealist or Non-Surrealist
Hello everyone,
I'd just like to inquire to the knowledgeable members of this project on whether Marcel Duchamp was Surrealist enough to have the Surrealism template on his page. I have been having a debate about the matter on Marcel Duchamp's talk page here for three days now, but the discussion is unfortunately going nowhere, a paradox has already emerged, and we've managed to settle the issue over whether he was a Cubist.
From the Surrealism article: "Though Breton admired Pablo Picasso and Marcel Duchamp and courted them to join the movement, they remained peripheral." (See source therein). The article goes on to cite the peripheral activities performed by Duchamp within the context of the movement. Such activity may or may not warrant the inclusion of the Surrealism template. If reliable sources can be found which state unambiguously that Duchamp was a Surrealist, then the template is justified. Note: the French article on Duchamp has an unsourced section on Duchamp's Surrealist collaborations. Note too, Duchamp was peripheral to many movements, including Abstract art, Op art, and Conceptual art, yet the relevant templates do not, and should not, appear on the Duchamp page. Coldcreation (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
There are changes at List of Stone Age art, some disputed and a minor edit war occurred to keep the long-standing lede which, like much of the page, gives credit to the uncredited painters and sculptors of the period. The talk page discussion seems to be taking the direction of 'is the list a visual arts page and an archeological page or just an archeological page', which are both templated at the top. A balance should be achieved, but in the process not lose (and hopefully expand) the visual arts project component. Please have a look if so inclined. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Painting until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. Certes (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, let's save this one and make it into a showcase. It is viewed more than 10,000 times a year. "Miscellany for deletion", talk about a dusty well-in-the-back Wikipedia backroom where deletionists roam at will. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I make it 3,456 pageviews. Beware that editors quoting per-year pageviews in previous MfDs have received a robust response from editors who prefer to emphasise the lower per-day number. Certes (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
As Certes should be very well aware from the many dozens of previous discussions in which Certes participated and where this was discussed, the reason for using a daily average is notto emphasise the lower per-day number (which is blatant ABF). As has been repeatedly explained, the reason to use the daily average is to allow straightforward comparison of figures regardless of what time period is used for the sample frame. By using averages, we can directly compare the viewing figures for say a whole year with those for a single week or month or quarter.
If even one person a day views Portal:Painting, and gains from their visit, that is a net benefit for the reading public. Some editors know this to be true and, as one of those odd creatures, I can't imagine thinking of it any other way (well, I can imagine it, but don't want to go to that space. The one editor a day, being presented with an interesting portal which will only improve if a few people put some time into it, might appreciate that). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn, Certes's comment was about presentation of statistics. So was my reply.
Your comment is about the significance of the statistics, which is a different matter. But since you want to go there: just about any list randomly-generated list of Wikipedia articles may have some value to someone. So WP:USEFUL notes that we set higher criteria.
Randy's comment appears to assumes that a reader-facing page can have only positive value; it certainly makes no mention of the negative the negative value of a poor page, like the spam portal which currently exists. Junk like that wastes the time of readers, it misleads readers, and it damages Wikipedia' hard-win reputation. Instead of WP:THETRUTH assertions like Some editors know this to be true, it would be much more collaborative for Randy to listen to why many experienced editors support deletion of a portal. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Painting has been kept! I don't work on portals, but will give some edits into this one. I really don't see that much wrong with it, but editor BrownHairedGirl seems to be in the process of writing a portal critique that sounds like a needed addition, and thank you. Although the deletion was closed as Keep, I hope they can add or link the critique on the portal talk page and link it here. Maybe we can all join in to further improve the portal (I find it very interesting and beneficial as is, so anything else would just make it better) and assure both its continued existence and reader-value. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The deletion discussion has been reopened to present "new evidence" which shows that the portal could use some work, which is what was going to happen anyway after the initial close to 'keep' the Portal. Please comment on the deletion page if you wish. Maybe using BrownHairedGirl's useful analysis as a jump-off point, if the Portal is "saved" again, will assist the best possible result for the many readers who view it daily. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
My evidence shows that portal has no value, that is is pure spam. It is an indiscriminate list of pages created by an editor who measured the success of mass creations of portals solely by the speedy which he created them. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Many editors have endorsed keeping the portal, and it has been kept once. Your "evidence", a well written critique, doesn't change the fact that it was kept on the strength of editors making their decision without your report, and asking that it be kept and worked on. Despite this, you keep calling another editor's work insulting names, even though many other editors see value in it. I'd like to see you and The Transhumanist and others join in a collaboration to improve Portal:Painting and making it one of the best Portals on Wikipedia. Being able to collab is one of the backbones of Wikipedia, and there is no question that you are able to see what needs to be fixed. You put six hours into analyzing what's wrong, please consider putting an hour into improving what you are able to improve. And The Transhumanist and others can look at your work and improvise onto it (a good collab is probably like a good improvised jazz piece combining the individual talent and innate know-how of its participants). Come on, give it a go. Pretty please with an undiscovered Pre-Raphaelite masterpiece on top. It'd be fun, no? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Randy, you have entirely ignored the reasons why I described TTH's work as junk. I set out the problems in in detail, and other editors made decisions without seeing the problems I identified. If you ignore the substance, then discussion with you is pointless.
And, no I absolutely will not collobarate with TTH. That is the editor who spewed out over 3,000 portals at the fastest speed possible, with no regard to quality. I came here to build an encyclopedia, to be party to the indiscriminate making of pointless pages. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Randy - neither BHG nor The Transhumanist are interested in doing that sort of work on individual portals. If you want it, I suggest you start it yourself. Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
New bot to remove completed infobox requests
Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Visual arts since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!
Hello! Does the Visual Arts Wikiproject have criteria for inclusion on lists? Some of the lists of artists are getting really long, and include well known artists who have made major contributions to art history, as well as artists who barely pass notability and are not included in any collections or had significant coverage. Has there been a discussion about this in the past in terms of how these lists might be curated (or if that is even a relevant idea)? I'm wondering if we should think about a guideline - for example, artists on lists must have work included in three major museum collections and three significant articles or monographs on their work, or.... Feedback and thoughts on this matter would be appreciated. Netherzone (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Removal of content from Ukiyo-e - Featured article
Villach100 is attempting to revise and remove content a lot of content from the Ukiyo-e. The article is a Featured article right now and I am concerned that the changes will make it lose its featured status. I have warned the user on their talk page, twice. I also started a discussion at Talk:Ukiyo-e. My brain is super foggy today (part of my disability) and I am not understanding the nature of the changes. Can someone also look at this?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Open-access art books and images
The following was posted without a signature at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous). I've reordered the links so that newer announcements are at the top.
Metropolitan Museum of Art art works in public domain[4]
Getty Museum artworks: virtual library to download [5]
New York Public Library: released artworks, images, books. [6]
I was aware of some of these, most of all the Met (wonderful set of books). The Paris one is from this year, and I heard about it separately. I didn't see much imagery that wasn't already covered by commons. I saw some numismatics images that wouldn't fall under "2D copy", the odd sculpture, but overall found the interface difficult.
The Guggenheim books announcement from 2017 completely escaped me. There are 205 otherwise copyrighted modern-art books on the Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/guggenheimmuseum. Great!
Hi. I just submitted an article for Russian artist Karina Eibatova, and it could use with further feedback and expansion. For example, possibly a more fleshed-out "Selected works" section, and fuller "Work" section, detailing some of her commissioned and published works. Any help appreciated; thanks. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Cleveland Museum of Art: Open Access Anniversary + Editing Campaign
January 23rd was the one-year anniversary of the Cleveland Museum of Art's Open Access initiative, and they put up a nice blog post of the outcomes and collaborations that have resulted from it (including impacts on Wikimedia projects).
Commons has deleted all images I have uploaded on Commons for the artist Lionel Estève. It looks like they're going to remove all the images that I upload. All the images are very relevant to the work of the artist and necessary or the article. Can someone direct me to upload them via Wikipedia collection or explain to me how to avoid commons deletion? I agree, how did Wikipedia let Commons take total control of images? Thanks. Curatorslog (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
All those images are clearly copyrighted and thus cannot at all be uploaded to commons , which require the images to be freely licensed. You can upload one or two representative copyrighted images that meed en.wiki's non-free requirements to en.wiki via the "Upload file" links to the left, but be aware we expect minimal use and there should be discussion of the importance of the images (Why they represent the artist's work or stand out) to be included) otherwise they will be deleted too. --Masem (t) 17:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi All,
The Glass article is currently undergoing GA review, if anyone with any particular expertise could assist with the Glass Art comments on the review page it would be very helpful and much appreciated. 16:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
The section Glass#Glass art could still do with some expert help, in particular it needs more references and better summary of the main glass art articles. Any assistance would be much appreciated. Polyamorph (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Just noticed at Marie Bashkirtseff and then checked Vincent van Gogh and there is a new invasive type of categories which are overwhelming the category list and are uneditable (I was going to remove them at Bashkirtseff). They seem to be a category of every listing in authority control. Yikes. Can these somehow be removed? Coder gone wild somewhere. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
They should be made administrative "hidden categories", which at least improves the visuals. Per WP:PROJCAT that should have been done in the first case. See Wikipedia:Categorization#Hiding_categories for how to do it (very easy, at the top level). Whether these serve any useful purpose, other than statistical willy-waving, I don't know. It might be interesting to nominate one at WP:CFD for deletion, but I think as so many articles are concerned, it's probably best to do a nom to turn them hidden. Johnbod (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks like it's a site-wide coding leak, so hopefully the coding editors will catch on and track it down. I'll wait before pointing it out to see if someone fixes it. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok, Thanks for the quick response. As so often with this stuff, that's only "obvious" to some! Who's going to fix it? Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Anyway, I've boldly reverted these, without having any idea what they were about, so don't come asking me about it. Sadly Marie Bashkirtseff is unchanged - is this a cacheing thing? Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Johnbod and Tom.Reding: It seems that BrownHairedGirl was attempting to move the handing of the the category's table of contents from the module to the template that calls it, for reasons unstated. That's why we should be using informative edit summaries and talk pages. There was a matching edit atTemplate:Pages with authority control identifiers, which I've now reverted to prevent the category pages having two TOCs.
For me, Marie Bashkirtseff looks right – I can't see the original problem, though – but I do see a lot of hidden categories, which is what I would expect if each identifier has its own tracking category. I've made a null edit to clear the article's cache, so let me know, John if you still see the problems on that article. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn, Johnbod, Tom.Reding, and RexxS: Sorry about that, folks. I made a mistake in my edit to the module. I'll explain the background, and the fix.
I have been deploying {{CatAutoTOC}}, which applies TOC templates according to fixed criteria. In doing so, I found that a few category header templates had their own code to apply their own criteria, so in each case I have replaced that with . The result is that the size thresholds are used to choose which (if any) TOC use are defined in one central location, simplifying maintenance and ensuring consistency.
In both of the two cases where that was done by a module, I did that by disabling the TOC-choosing code in the module, and applying to the calling template. That simplifies the code, and also ensures that the template is categorised in Category:Templates using CatAutoTOC.
@Tom.Reding: To ensure that that the changes are easily-spotted, I left all the now-redundant TOC-related code in Module:Pages with authority control identifiers, commented out. It would be more elegant to simply remove the TOC-related code, if that's OK with you.
Thanks BrownHairedGirl, as a noncoder and a non-Greek the explanation is all Greek to me, but the category-flood was fun while it lasted. I did check varied pages while it was up and looks like it was site-wide over English Wikipedia. Interesting how a couple edits can change the look of the project (again, from a non-coder perspective). Thanks again! Randy Kryn (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks also, BrownHairedGirl, for putting my attention on the authority control box on Wikipedia. The people who put those, and things like them, together, and developed coding throughout the decades to keep things like them do whatever it is they do well, are awesome in a technological limit-breaking way. That's a word I can't remember ever using before. Coders are awesome. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree, Randy Kryn. There are some brilliant coders around here,and some of the Lua modules which have been developed over the years do an amazing job.
My favourite piece of coding is {{Navseasoncats}}/Module:Navseasoncats. It was conceived and developed by User:Le Deluge, and then last year it was taken to a new level by User:Tom.Reding. That template has finally allowed the masses of chronology categories to be navigated effectively.
Thanks, those are things I've never made a mental map of, so have almost no point of reference, but I can tell that there's a deep beauty to the mathematical mesh. Tom.Reding, what's you favorite Wikipedia coding? Randy Kryn (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I've always been in awe of the versatility, generality, and ingenuity employed in the CS1|2 module suite developed by Trappist the monk. ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)13:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words, BrownHairedGirl. I feel I could've done a better, more concise, general job if I had to rewrite it now from scratch, knowing all of the nuances, and cases, and exceptions to cases, etc., though that is not something I would do. I still like reading over it when I get bored though, and I very much like the additional functionality. ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)13:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
In the category structure Sculpture (the art) has a subcat named Sculptures (instances of sculpture). This makes sense and in the same cat/subcat relationship found throughout the visual arts (and other categories). sculpture states "Sculpture is the branch of the visual arts", which is clear enough. As such, I have been making 'sculpture' by country cats to be subcats of 'Arts in foocountry' while 'sculptures' by country cats to be subcats of 'fooiancountry art' subccat. Why: because the arts category tree covers each 'art'--as an art-- while the art category tree covers the actual objects of each 'art'. This makes sense for all of the arts and their objects and it should make sense for sculpture also. One editor is objecting to this and reverting all my work. That editor wants sculptures to also appear in the 'fooiancountry art' categories and not in the 'Arts in foocountry' categories, stating the sculpture is not one of the arts. Thoughtful discussion please. Hmains (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Just an interjection - to say I'm "stating the sculpture is not one of the arts" is untrue. I'm saying sculpture is one of the visual arts, and thereby at a higher level part of the arts, which is what our category scheme has always reflected, correctly. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
You say "the arts category tree covers each 'art'--as an art-- while the art category tree covers the actual objects of each 'art'" - I don't know where you get this idea, which isn't true at all. As confirmed by many discussions over the years, including a recent CfD one, "art" on WP means the visual arts, such as painting & sculpture, and "the arts" means that plus everything else, literature, music, dance etc. Each of the arts should have a subcat, with the "art" one covering the visual arts. All these sub-cats contain both topical articles, and those on idividual works, arranged as appropriate to the numbers etc. General topical articles on "Fooish sculpture" must be in the "Fooish art" head cat, with a "Fooish sculptures" sub-cat. It makes no sense at all to split individual works from related topics by several degrees, as you propose. If you are correct, why did all the categories need changing? Why aren't paintings arranged the way you suggest? And why didn't you ask here first? "Art" is a tricky word with many meanings, but the senses used in the wp category structure have been settled for well over a decade now, and not in the way you claim. To make the issue clear, he did this sort of edit to every country, which I have reverted. He then followed this up with an edit like this; I haven't reverted these, but they need reverting. Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
This is simply not true; if there are cases where something like this has happened to a category, it should be corrected. This is not a specialist area of yours, & you may be confused by things like Category:Paintings in Germany coming off the "arts in Germany" category, while the far larger Category:German paintings comes off the "German art" category. I'm not sure this is actually a good idea, but this is how things are at present. You are clearly very confused by something. In fact your changes have messed up the existing scheme even more: in the Korean examples I link to above your second edit moves "Sculptures IN Korea" (my emphasis) OUT of "Arts IN Korea" to "Korean art" - in fact all the sculptures in the cat seem actually to be Korean, but for other countries they won't be. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I must admit, I'm quite confused by the above conversation, and I've worked on art articles quite a lot. The "art" category trees certainly seem to need more looking at, or at the very least some explanation :) [edit: okay, I can see there are category trees for "artworks located in Germany" and "artwork by German artists", though that is still a bit messy] Sionk (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, talking about categories easily gets confusing in my experience. Hmains should understand it better than most, as nearly all his edits are to categories. There isn't actually either a category for "artwork by German artists", nor a tree; nor should there be, so introducing this idea is liable to confuse matters further. There is a tree leading to Category:Works by German people. But yes, we have cats for works by present location and by origin, which is a bit of a pain frankly. The key questions are: What should the parents be of a) "German sculpture" and b) "German sculptures" (nb not a cat that exists at the moment). On a) Hmains changed the parent of "German sculpture" from "German art" (where it had been for 12 years, btw) to "Arts in Germany". I say this was wrong, & reverted him. Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, though when they are closely related we don't want too much of that - see WP:OCAT. I don't see that helps here - Hmains doesn't think that "German sculpture" is "German art" - you'd better ask him why. If it is "German art", then it shouldn't be duplicated in "Arts in Germany". Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
We don't want to make a category too populous but we also don't want to omit something from a location in which a reader might logically be looking for it. It can be difficult. Bus stop (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, and that is what is wrong, and different from the way other artistic media are handled. Category:German sculpture should be a child of Category:German art , NOT a direct child of Category:Arts in Germany. This is what Hmains just doesn't get. He rejects "sculpture" being part of "art". Why he doesn't want to treat say "novels" as separate from "literature", or "symphonies" as separate from "music" I don't know. Johnbod (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Johnbod, of course sculptures are included in the visual arts along with paintings. Always have been, since Adam and Eve painted each other onto stone walls and then carved sculptures from the rock. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Is anyone able to help with the article on Auseklis Ozols? It has suffered from promotionalism and an editor with an apparent CoI, based on her username. I've done some editing and removed the worst of the non-neutral language, but I am struggling to find online sources which I'm sure are reliable. At the moment none of the article content is referenced directly. Many thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Just in case there are folks here who might be interested in reviewing drafts awaiting article status that are particular to this WikiProject. If you'd like to sign up to review/approve/decline new Drafts, instructions are here. AFC Reviewers get to use really cool automated tools that make reviewing really quick and easy, and I've really enjoyed volunteering there, and I'm really digging the AFC Sorting tool so instead of having to comb through lots of articles, I can zip right to topics I'm interested in. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I've given it a not-very-generous C. Arguably it's B, but the sources could be stronger & so on. I'd spread more images around the text. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
Hello, Please note that Fine art, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBottalk00:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team
Iranian queer artist and activit Alireza Shojaian's article is nominated for deletion by an Iranian user. In Iran being gay is punishable by public execution. Alireza is prime among young Iranian artists to paint works aiming to fight prejudice and persection against LGBT people in Iran and othter intoleratnt countries. The rational for the nomination is lack of notability. Articles about Alireza were issued in Paris, Beirut, Italy and Canadian-American print magazines. This comes after a failed attempt to erase Egyptian gay rights activist Sarah Hegazi who suffered from harrassement and imprisoment in Egypt before taking her own life. Please step in to stop the deletion of middle eastern gay persons. Thank you. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Shearonink, there is some guidance at WP:IG My take on it is that we should have as many images as is necessary to show our readers something, like how someone's work developed. In this case, just by looking at the gallery, I'm not sure I can tell what that is. Vexations (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
GAR notice
Sistine Chapel ceiling, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Eddie891TalkWork17:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Francisco Goya, Charles IV of Spain and His Family. 1800–1801. 280 × 336 cm. Oil on canvas. Museo del Prado, Madrid.As a general note I would avoid citing to a work of art itself, and try to cite to a secondary source on it, such as a museum catalog's entry - depending on the instance, citing to the work of art for certain statements could be considered synthesis/OR. I do not believe WP has a template for citing to a work of art - however, MOS:VISUAL does have a preferred 'caption' format, which is shown in this fine Goya. I would assume this caption format would serve equally well as a citation. ‡ Єl Cid of Valenciatalk19:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
@François Robere:, I agree it would be preferable to cite something other than the painting itself, but if you want some sort of here's how I'd do it vaguely based on Chicago style:
{{cite AV media|last=Goya y Lucientes|first=Francisco de|title=La familia de Carlos IV |date=1800–1801 |medium=Oil on canvas, 280 × 336 cm |location=Museo del Prado, Madrid |id=[https://www.museodelprado.es/en/the-collection/art-work/the-family-of-carlos-iv/f47898fc-aa1c-48f6-a779-71759e417e74 P000726] }}
Goya y Lucientes, Francisco de (1800–1801). La familia de Carlos IV (Oil on canvas, 280 × 336 cm). Museo del Prado, Madrid. P000726.
Thank you both. The specific case I was looking at is a listing at an artist's page, and it occurred to me that we must have some standard format. I agree that it's rare that we'd need to cite a piece as a "source", but not unheard of. François Robere (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm with you on this. I've never heard, seen nor read Louise Bourgeois' name as anything other than her first and last name, in any language or an exhibition in any country I've been to. COMMONNAME is Louise Bourgeois, and for purposes of disambigulation, Louise Bourgeois (artist) would work. Netherzone (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC) additional comment: Keeping the artist, Louise Bourgeois as the Primary Topic (to avoid fixing the hundreds of links) is preferable. Netherzone (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The artist is, without a doubt, the primary topic and the midwife primarily goes by another name so not sure why these moved in the first place. czar19:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Czar, Mostly agree, and perhaps it's not our problem, but the midwife's name is not Louise Boursier, but Louise Bourgeois, dite La Boursier (Boursier means Scholar). The British Museum gives it as Louise Bourgeois, dite Boursier
I wasn't looking forward to fixing over 900 links to as disambiguation page, so if we can keep Louise Bourgeois for the artist, that'd be fine with me. Vexations (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
That British Museum link uses both names so to my eyes Louise Boursier is at the least a natural disambiguation. If someone wants to propose a different dab for the midwife, they're welcome to do so, but discussion would be needed to usurp the primary topic placement. Based on what I see in the sourcing, the artist has the clearest claim to it. czar19:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
As of this writing, there should be hundreds of articles in it. But there are only 52 (fifty-two) right now, and many of these are recent creations by me. I think a bot should skim all the articles containing the template "Artwork" and place all the relevant ones in that category, too. --Edelseider (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
You raise a second problem here, but the first is - irrespective of the category's name - why do so little people know that it exists and use it accordingly? --Edelseider (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if this is something that a bot can do. It may require human eyes to parse whether any given subject falls within the category. BD2412T13:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Probably because there would be tens-of-thousands of entries, it's literally a 'Paint on canvas' category. Too much of a good thing. Probably should be deleted (noticed it's in the parent Category:Oil paintings which has its own nine dangling painting entries). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Subcategories by centuries would be a great start, and if things get too crowded, sub-subcategories by decades ("1660s", "1870s", "1910s", etc.) --Edelseider (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
We already have categories for paintings by year such as [[Category:1863 paintings]]. It could make sense to add'oil' to these categories (as applicable). ‡ Єl Cid of Valenciatalk14:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Altered my viewpoint a bit, because I realized that if the suggested oil painting categories, augmented with corresponding acrylic painting categories, already existed, I'd take a look at them. It just sounds like a high mountain to climb, so am glad that editors who have these things mentally outlined see their value. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I fixed it so they both redirect to Informalism - from what I understand (and per our articles) Informalism and Art Informel are essentially synonymous, while Tachisme is associated with but not interchangeable with Informalism. It seems the redirect is explained by the Informalism page having been created in 2013, while the redirect was created in 2007. ‡ Єl Cid of Valenciatalk13:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Or maybe a Freedonian contemporary artist. Or similar.
A great percentage of living artists are described in the opening sentences of their articles (which also provide a recentish year of birth, and no year of death) as "contemporary". To which my reaction is: Well, obviously.
Occasionally I start to wonder if "contemporary" is a code word for "not in the School of Thomas Kinkade": If the new art over your mantelpiece is "contemporary", does that mean that it's not of a kind that will have your more knowledgable friends trying to stifle their giggles?
In a less charitable mood, I wonder if, used in this seemingly pleonastic way, the term isn't just bullshit.
Am I missing something? Should the obviously contemporary continue to be labelled "contemporary"? (And if so, should the word be stripped X years after an artist's death?) -- Hoary (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you are joking, but if not, "contemporary art" is an art historical time period following modern art, with the break occurring in the post-WWII years. It is not linked to the artist's date of death. For example, if they started painting in 1957 and died in 2000 they would still be classified as a contemporary artist. Netherzone (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
OK then: If an article starts, say, "Joe Bloggs (born 1974) is a contemporary Freedonian [or "Freedonian contemporary"] artist, working in sculpture and installation art", can we delete the "contemporary" as self-evident? -- Hoary (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Sure, I don't see why not. It does not seem controversial to remove "contemporary" in cases like that. However I do think it is a useful category tag. Netherzone (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop, we're told that "Miya Ando is a contemporary American artist of half-Japanese and half-Russian-American heritage and is a 16th-generation descendant of Bizen sword maker Ando Yoshiro Masakatsu." If "contemporary" were deleted from that, what would be lost? (Additionally, but irrelevantly, is this an encyclopedia or the Social Register?) -- Hoary (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
That construction is problematic, Hoary. "Contemporary" seems to modify "American". I agree that removing "contemporary" from that sentence would be an improvement. I had not seen the Miya Ando article before. Bus stop (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Hoary, what about the bizarre "half-Japanese and half-Russian-American heritage"? Perhaps you could also do something about the "steel canvasses"? And the "selected as Critics' Pick" which means nothing more than that Artforum published a review of her work. I don't know why anyone would think that the existence of a source exists should be mentioned, or even considered an "ArtForum award" per [10] rather than used to say something meaningful. Vexations (talk) 11:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Vexations, I know, it seems dumb. Compare that article with Evgenia Arbugaeva, whose lead doesn't just say where she came from but also explains the significance of this to the art (photography) for which she's notable; a worthwhile approach I think. -- Hoary (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
There are many approaches to writing a Wikipedia article, Hoary. We don't have to confine ourselves to formulaic approaches. What works at one article might not work at another article. Bus stop (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
Hello, Please note that Asian art, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBottalk00:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team
Currently the by-century categories are named "in the arts", but the by-decade and by-year categories are named "in arts". I have proposed two options for a common format: either "in the arts" or "in arts". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Advice for the entry on Michelle Obama’s official portrait
Hello! In wanting to tidy up First Lady Michelle Obama (painting) because of a DYK on a related entry, I have wound up 5x’ing this page too. However painting is not usually a medium I work on and I don’t know that I have done the work justice. If anyone is interested to give me some pointers (or make any additions, revisions, etc. that you see fit!), I would like welcome the assistance! Thank you very much. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Paul Strisik is a bit promotional, I am proposing it for deletion
The topic may be notable, but the tone of the current and previous revisions is promotional enough that it would be better if the page "disappeared" until someone requested a "refund" to work on it.
I did a rewrite to remove promotional material, hopefully it will be good now. It does concern me that a lot of the sources cited have "Strisik" as the author name, but I will leave that determination for another editor. ‡ Єl Cid of Valenciatalk14:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I will leave the PROD up pending other's opinions, but I won't send immediately to AFD if you or another editor removes it either. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello, I'm requesting a reassessment of the class-rating of an article I recently created, Black-on-black ware, a type of pottery made by indigenous Puebloans. I self-assessed it as a Start class not long after it was created, and I've worked on it quite a bit since then, and think it is now beyond "Start". If someone can find a moment to reassess it I'd appreciate it very much. Feel free to point out any glaring errors if you have the time. Thanks in advance! Netherzone (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Pueblo pottery - requesting reassessment of article quality scale
Hello! I recently created the article Pueblo pottery, on Native American pottery from the Southwest. I self-assessed it as a Start class not long after creation, but have developed it beyond that. If anyone has the time to look over the article and reassess it, I would be very grateful. Not all of the citations are clickable links, as am working from books that I own (but don't think that will be problematic.) Thank you in advance. Netherzone (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I have created Template:ACArt, a visual arts specific version of the general Template:Authority Control. I have implemented it at Jan van Eyck as a demonstration: it reduces the clutter of 36 or so AC links to a much more reasonable 15, keeping the arts-specific ones (like RKD or Balat) and the most useful general ones for enwiki (Worldcat, LoC, ...), but removing the less interesting ones (non-English ones simply repeating the biographic basics, or things like Musicbrainz). The selection of what to include and what to exclude may need refinement, this is done in Module:ACArt (a spin-off of Module:Authority control).
All you need to do is replace, at the bottom of an article, {{Authority control}} with {{ACArt}}, et voilà! Fram (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
This is helpful, but at the moment misses the most important items like the British Museum, Joconde, Metropolitan and other big US collections, V&A etc. Auckland NZ is no substitute. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Joconde is included, if it is on Wikidata. The others are not available in the main authority control template, I don't know if they are on Wikidata. If they are available on Wikidata, they can be added to authority control and will then appear in ACArt as well. Fram (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Not immediately. I'll first see whether this new template is considered an improvement by enough people, and whether the choice of links to display from the currently available ones is good (some missing, some not wanted, ...). A separate discussion can be had to add more of the (many) art IDs Wikidata has to the main authority control template (there are dozens of them). At worst, if it would become too much for the general authority template but the art people want them anyway, we can turn this again into a truly separate template instead of a selective wrapper; but I would prefer to avoid this. Wanted additions can be proposed at Wikipedia talk:Authority control: at the moment all additions to that template will also show up in the ACArt one.
I have nominated Campbell's Soup Cans for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Sourcing and OR tags since 2007 - impressive! Fortunately it's mostly about literature. As student essays go, I've seen worse. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, these aren't examples at all, unless you go to the history, as you've already stripped them back to stubs on the basis of a single comment. Collections and exhibitions are typically key for the notability of contemporary artists, so I think you should be more cautious in calling them WP:UNDUE. Many are of course too long, but typically the more significant ones are key pieces of information. User:Vexations, do you mean "removing any entry that cannot be reliably sourced" or "removing any entry that is not reliably sourced"? There's a big difference. The correct treatment for the latter is to tag it, and maybe talk to the editor who added it. I'd hold off on any "mass deletion". Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Johnbod, I meant removing any entry that cannot be reliably sourced. If for example, a museum collection is listed, but not sourced, I search the museum collection prior to marking it is as failed verification and subsequently removing it if I really cannot confirm that a work is in the collection that the article claims. In the case of Buetti, for example, it is easy to confirm that the Migros Museum of Contemporary Art has works by Buetti in their collection https://migrosmuseum.ch/kuenstler/daniele-buetti That belongs in the article. Vexations (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Novem Linguae I have restored the collections that could be verified for these two artists and added refs. I don't think articles on artists who are clearly notable (as the case with Buetti and Fitzgerald) should be chopped so radically. IMO, it's much better to remove the fluff, selectively trim down to essentials and add RS refs. Netherzone (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey Netherzone. I notice from your edit summaries that you're a little annoyed that I stubbed Daniele Buetti. I mean, you can just revert my stubbing if you feel that strongly about it. This version is the pre-stub version. I think that version is terrible (COI, resume, tone, OR), but who knows, maybe I was wrong to WP:TNT it. Also, you say that this artist is notable like it's a sure thing... when I was doing my WP:BEFORE searches for AFD, it took me half an hour to find one GNG passing source, and even then I wasn't able to confirm because the book is rare. I am not 100% convinced he is notable (need around three GNG passing sources), but I chose to err on the side of caution, as other sources may exist. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Novem Linguae, Both artists are notable per WP:NARTIST. I've spent several hours starting to rebuild these two articles into encyclopedic form after they were stripped down, and I do not wish to spend more time on them. You might want to correct those citations in Mary Fitzgerald if they bother you. Buetti is 100% notable - per the international exhibition record and multiple collections in notable museums. Fitzgerald is 100% notable, she represented Ireland in the Sao Paulo Bienial, and has an international career plus museum collections. To my way of thinking the articles needed cleaning up or maintenance tagging not TNTing. Netherzone (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Netherzone, good point on WP:NARTIST, Buetti might qualify under #4b been a substantial part of a significant exhibition. I was never worried about Fitzgerald's notability. Anyway, in the future feel free to revert a WP:TNT you disagree with, and we can follow BRD and talk it out. I'd rather have the sting of a revert, than have you annoyed for an hour re-writing the article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Novem Linguae, Buetti's work is in many museum collections, there are now ten sourced notable museum collections in the article. NARTIST criteria 4d states "several" notable collections which I understand to mean two or more (this is the standard that has been used at AfD.) Artists do not have to meet all four criteria of NARTIST, just one. Netherzone (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Please help identifying this painting. The filename is in Romanian and reads 'Rembrandt Woman with hood'. I failed to find this painting anywhere else, much less attributed to Rembrandt. In an associated edit on rowiki uploader attempted to replace a self-portrait of the painter with this image. File description reads the same as the filename, with the addition of 'private collection' mention. Gikü (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I'm currently working on the Cueva de las Manos wiki article—an article about an ancient cave full of paintings—and I would love it if I had your help in collaborating on the project. The article is currently B class and I'm working on getting it to GA status. Thanks! Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I had found the request to create Buffalo Center for Media Study article through WikiProject Visual arts and WikiProject Sculpture > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Visual_arts/Things_you_can_do I chose the article based on that. However, once I started to research this group I do believe this group/deparment does meet notability requirements because of what they established together: The notable people worked together to create this department/group at a time that there was not any other program like it, and it is currently the oldest and longest standing media arts program in America. Those individuals became notable because of it, and the program/department continues to produce notable artists in New Media to this day. Suggestions, additions, and edits to improve the page are welcome.ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey, I fully agree with your assessment on notability here—I would bring it to AFD, or if you want, I could do that for you. Aza24 (talk)
Would an article-rater have a look at Modern art? I have done a lot of improvement in the citations, plus I added a couple of citations in place of a {{citation needed}} tag. Currently, the ORES predicted quality is B-Class article B (4.01). Currently the human-rating is C-Class. I'd do it myself except I shouldn't be changing a rating based on my own effort. Peaceray (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Peaceray, I'm painfully late, but I would say it still remains C class, perhaps even start. Besides the fact that the "Important modern art exhibitions and museums" section should probably pruned entirely, there remains no citations the "Early 20th century" section and few in the others. Though even if fully referenced, all of the sections are minuscule and there is no section on the broader context of modernism as a whole (i.e. with other arts), or on what "modern art" is actually defined as. Additionally, there seem to be major movements not discussed in the text, the Pre-Raphaelites, Suprematism and Pointillism for example. I hope this isn't discouraging, but I would encourage you to perhaps continue your efforts with the article in The Core Contest in a few weeks. The fact that you've tackled such a massive topic is admirable in itself. Aza24 (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Aza24: Thanks! No, I am not discouraged at all. I am here to improve things, but others are better or more expert at some tasks, like class ratings. I know that the ORES is imperfect but sometimes indicative, but thought I would ask here.
I've added some significant edits to the Article The Babylonian Marriage Market. Any guidance, feedback or additions would be very greatly appreciated.
Hi Wikipedia's, I'm requesting that the article, The Babylonian Marriage Market is assessed. I'd love to have your expertise on the article's quality, illustrating where the article succeeds and where it can be improved.
Michaelaroney (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
My advice would be to look at featured painting articles such as Rokeby Venus and The Raft of the Medusa. Use them as a template for improvements. I agree with what Sionk said about too much on the artist's bio (and the second artist infobox), and there are some general formatting issues (capitalized section titles). I will try to help with the more cosmetic stuff when I get a second. ‡ El cid, el campeadortalk14:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your advice and for pointing me in the direction of those two articles, I've begun reviewing them to see what elements are needed for the Babylonian Marriage Market. Thanks Again! Michaelaroney (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Please check the sources I have gathered thus far on the draft page. Does this look like a potentially notable artist?
I've noticed his work on various social media and am taking a chance to see if an article about him is possible. I have found two mainstream media articles from the Japan Times and NHK as well as a few other publications I'm less sure of. Unfortunately I cannot read Japanese so I'm possibly missing further sources. Consequently I'd like to find a collaborator who does understand Japanese (if an article is viable of course). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Seeing these 'new' expanded authority control templates appearing on art pages, even on tangential pages like Dante Gabriel Rossetti's parents. Is there some way to collapse these, preferably all at once? They crowd out the concept of stacked collapsed templates, or even pile up on the expanded ones. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
For arts-related articles, there is Template:Authority control (arts), used on more than 15,000 pages already; it has the same layout as the main authority control template, but omits a number of less relevant links, making the template smaller (if you are lucky). It is normally only intended for artists, artworks, and museums, but it can be used at every page where the editors think it is better.
Collapsing the authority control template got a divided reaction at a just-closed RfC about the new look; perhaps this will need to be adressed again, but I'll let someone else start that if they want this. Fram (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Fram. Missed the RfC, my fault I don't keep up with every one. Having a brief discussion at the template talk page, would think that readers who use and love AC would have enough common sense and experience to click 'view'. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
A question has been raised re section headings here. People might like to comment there (right at the bottom). Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The article Primary color was pretty much flushed of any neutral or positive reference to the traditional RYB primaries typically associated with pigments, painting, and art education; I've been trying to fix that, by including a short section on this traditional way of organizing color around red, yellow, and blue as primaries. I haven't been able to raise any third party to the argument via Wikiproject Color, so maybe someone here has an opinion? Here's what I posted at WT:WikiProject Color#Red, yellow, blue primaries:
If anyone is still active on this project, we could use some opinions at Talk:Primary color/GA1#The RYB POV problem, re how to treat the "traditional" or "painters'" RYB primaries in the article Primary color. An editor has done his best to deprecate, demote, remove, and criticize RYB as primaries, and took the article to good-article review in that form; I'm trying to fix it back to a more useful and neutral treatment.
Oh, there are plenty of people still active on this project, but this is a pretty minor aspect of historic art - I doubt Titian or Raphael had strong views on the matter. The talk is TLDR, but I've corrected/linked a couple of obvious errors. Johnbod (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
My "still active on this project" query was more specific to Wikiproject Color, where I've had trouble eliciting any reaction on several topics before this. Thanks for responding and tweaking a few things. I agree that classic painters might have not been into these "color theory" concepts; the question is more about how to represent it today. Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Edward Mitchell Bannister has been nominated as a featured article candidate; the nomination can be found here. Since the article falls under this WikiProject's scope, I am posting this notice here. It currently needs more comments, so if you've got time, please comment on the nomination page. If you do not believe that the article can be improved further, feel free to Support it. Otherwise, if you find issues with the article that are actionable, then please Oppose it with a list of items that can be improved on. Thanks in advance! —Wingedserif (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
The outcome of that discussion was a decision to standardize to "Paintings in the collection of [...]". There are now two more CfR nominations relating to this, here and here. Please have your say! Ham II (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Lalan (artist) is promising, but has been plagued by copyright problems and a difficulty verifying the mentioned permanent collections. 1) Feel free to swing by and assist. I'd be happy to accept this once I'm confident it passes WP:NARTIST. 2) Are there any good database websites to check to help with investigating if an artist passes NARTIST? 3) Is "4d: 2 permanent collections" the most common NARTIST criteria that you see, or should I be looking closely at the other criteria as well? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I would say the two books about her, the articles in the China Daily and obituary in Le Monde sail her over the WP:GNG threshold. If the copyright issues have been dealt with I would definitely accept this article if I was reviewing it. Sionk (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I think the obituary is about her husband. But the rest looks good. I accepted it. If anybody knows about the nuances of WP:NARTIST, feel free to answer my questions about that above. I'd like to learn more about this SNG so I can apply it better in the future. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog FarmTalk03:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Another Commons attempt to remove a major image
See Talk:Women's Rights Pioneers Monument. The only image on the page, its defining image, needs help to continue to define. Please join the discussion to keep or delete this image of a major suffrage monument and the only statue of real women in Central Park. Wouldn't its use on the page constitute fair use? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to Improve Template Infobox artist by adding parameter for existing works...
I don't do uploads (computer injury from the comma war), can someone please upload an image of Guernica to Wikipedia (and keep it away from the good faith deleters at Commons) which was removed today. It was covered well by fair use. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
Hello, Please note that History of art, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBottalk00:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team
The article María Fernanda Cuartas references the Biblioteca de Artistas de las Comunidades Europeas (BACE - The Artists Library of the European Union), that has listed her "among the 100 most important contemporary artists in the world" {tq|su nombre figuró entre los 100 artistas contemporáneos más importantes del mundo, según la Biblioteca de Artistas de las Comunidades Europeas (Bace)}} according to El Pais. I am unable to find anything on that organization. Does anyone know if it exists under a different name perhaps? Thanks, Vexations (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I think there are tons of examples from other countries, but no generally recognised name for them, nor a very precise definition. But, frankly, on Commons, anything goes. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Of course create it, already well thought out enough to form and especially if you feel the topic and want to conceptualize it. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the responses. Others on Wikipedia have been firm that I should not create a category on my own (as this is original research). I have read Genre art and looked at Commons:Category:Genre_art There is no real category in for romanticized images of the 'white picket fence' house, often with children, alone in the landscape or serving as 'a refuge in the storm.' Now I think the term 'domestic' is too broad. Maybe "Home idyll"? I will create if no opposition.Downtowngal (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I have a draft underway on paint mixing which covers some aspects that don't seem to fit neatly into other articles (such as the use of paint shakers, which was my initial thought when starting the piece). Any help in getting it mainspace-ready would be appreciated. Cheers! BD2412T16:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
Hello, Please note that Postmodernism, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBottalk00:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team
Hello Wikipedia editors. I work with Monique Péan and am here on Wikipedia on her behalf. I have an open request where I've offered some improvements to the Wikipedia page about her, as it is currently missing a lot about Péan's work as an artist. The page also seems to use some sources that don't look ideal. One editor has reviewed the proposed changes and said that it looks good, and I am now looking for others to give feedback and make the edits.
And I went the other way and copied your draft to the page, seem okay on this and a previous read but will go over it again soon to spot editorial language. You seem adept at encyclopedic form and writing, hopefully you will edit more on nonpaid pages (although you may be a long time editor, haven't looked at your contribution or even user page as yet. trusting.) Randy Kryn (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. I have a hard time appreciating writing like "sustainable materials such as fossils" encyclopedic. Sustainable? Fossils? Like fossil fuels? Vexations (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Not sure if Fashion / Style / Beauty, Purpose and Perspective, and Capitol File are appropriate or not? I don't feel strongly about removing. ---Another Believer(Talk)22:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
KM for Monique Péan, thanks for following COI rules and seeking editor help here. I hope you don't mind, I made a few mostly minor changes to the article. Happy editing! ---Another Believer(Talk)22:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello @KM for Monique Péan:. A couple editors did some good work since the page was posted, and to them, thank you, sorry for just tossing it up there on the basis of trust, I actually thought it had checked out so I posted it without doing any legwork. My further apology to @Vexations:, who clearly didn't want to edit the page but ended up rolling up their sleeves and doing a full Wikipedian edit run which has improved the encyclopedic content of the article. I will study each edit of both editors to learn what should have been researched. Thanks to all of you. Now let's get this thing featured! (kidding...unless you all want to try it as a lark. Either way, what's been done so far should get the COI a raise or a Christmas bonus, a nice meteorite or something. It was pretty good writing within Wikipedia yard markers, especially if they've never written here before, hence my urging for them to pick a topic that they love and either write it from scratch or improve an existing page for free as a volunteer Wikipedian, which would be cool. One of us. One of us.). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello again, everyone. User:Randy Kryn, User:Vexations and User:Another Believer: thank you all for your thoughts and edits. I've left a note on the Monique Péan Talk page to reply to some of the concerns raised and hopefully help fix those issues: would you be able to take a look? As I explain there, I was very surprised the draft was added to the page so quickly and I'm more than happy to help on anything needed to fix anything. A couple of other things I wanted to ask: the autobiography tag on the page says that it "may need editing to conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy", how can I help with that? As well, I saw that a photo is requested and I'm going to work on that. Would one of you be able to help add it once I get one uploaded? Again, I'm very appreciative of all this feedback. KM for Monique Péan (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
US National archives Commons mass import included a set of artwork images which have very little information, only "Department of Defense. European Command. Office of Military Government for Germany (U.S.). Property Division. Munich Central Collecting Point". The files have a date of 1977, but I suspect this is an archive date and the images are earlier, possibly from shortly after World War 2.
Is anyone able to identify these?
Half doneHigh Family Expecting a Boat by Teniers
Half doneHigh Family Expecting a Boat by Teniers
Half doneHigh Family Expecting a Boat by Teniers
Half doneHigh Family Expecting a Boat by Teniers
Half doneHigh Family Expecting a Boat by Teniers
Done Relique holder head of St. Thecla, Basel, ca. 1300, gilt bronze
The set does include more images with reference numbers etc. but they do not mean anything to me. You can find them here. MKFI (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
A few of the images with reference numbers at Commons have additional handwritten inscriptions that are useful. The first five images above are identified as High Family Expecting a Boat by Teniers, a plausible attribution to either David Teniers the Elder or David Teniers the Younger. The 13th image is identified there as "Relique holder head of St. Thecla", Basel, ca. 1300, gilt bronze. The porcelain cups are identified as "4 cocoa cups / Meissen Horoldt? / c. 1725", which looks like a tentative attribution to Johann Gregor Herold. The fourth from last image above is signed Franz Stuck and looks like a pastel. Ewulp (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ewulp: thank you for your help. I have updated the gallery descriptions and categorized the images. High Family Expecting a Boat by Teniers paintings have been categorized into c:Category:Teniers family until we can figure out which Tenniers is the painter. MKFI (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
The ruins are (no doubt) by Victor-Jean Nicolle. I've added it to the 44 images Commons already has by this obscure artist. Frankly, these images are too low quality for the majority of uses. Personally, I'd just set up a category for them, & leave it at that. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
After multiple WP:CfD nominations produced contradictory results, I've set up a Request for Comment here to try and determine which naming convention should be used for the subcategories of Category:Paintings by collection. Should it be (A) Paintings in [a museum, etc.] or (B) Paintings in the collection of [a museum, etc.]? Resolution is sorely needed so that names elsewhere in the category tree can be cleaned up, so please contribute! Ham II (talk) 08:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Visual Arts Project editors. I work with Canadian artist Chris Dororsz and am here on his behalf. I prepared a draft page about him, which I just submitted for review. We're both highly conscious of COI requirements and interested and I work with Canadian artist Chris Dororsz and am here on his behalf. I prepared a draft page about him, which I just submitted for review. We're both highly conscious of COI requirements and want to do things the correct way. Any help or guidance you can provide is welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LO for Chris Dorosz (talk • contribs) 18:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Do you mean you work with Canadian artist Chris Dororsz and am here on his behalf, and you prepared a draft page about him, which you just submitted for review, and you're both highly conscious of COI requirements? Randy Kryn (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
This is probably about User:LO_for_Chris_Dorosz/sandbox. It could be a while before this is reviewed. My first impression is that you've tried refbombing as a strategy. A reviewer who is presented with 43 reference is going to think: "You want me to read all that?" instead of "Wow, forty-three references. Impressive! Let me skip all those and give it a quick pass." Now, as a rule, I always read ALL references, but I usually take a quick look at where they're all from before. Looking at your refs, I'd see artistaday.com, artnet.com,artnet.com, artprwire.wordpress.com, benswilliamson.wordpress.com, designboom.com, findingaids.library.dal.ca, gallerieswest.ca, hafny.org, hifructose.com, icasanjose.org, issuu.com, kqed.org, lca.sfsu.edu, magentafoundation.org, mission17.org, msvuart.ca, murielguepingallery.com, my.academyart.edu,nscad.ca, platformgallery.org, plugin.org, rbcinvestments.com, reg.gg.ca, rosl.org.uk, squarecylinder.com, srcart.com ,theatlantic.com, umanitoba.ca, vimeo.com, youtube.com and I'd think; "are any of these significant coverage in independent, reliable sources? The Atlantic perhaps? They're not really known for their art writing, but let's check them out." And then I'd see "This Content is made possible by our Sponsor; it is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of The Atlantic's editorial staff. See our Advertising Guidelines, or email advertising@theatlantic.com to learn more". It's going to be pretty hard to recover from that. In summary, this isn't going to impress anyone and you're better off with three really good sources. If they exist, of course. Vexations (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the outstanding feedback. I had the same concerns coming in and am happy to weed out what isn't appropriate. Ref overkill is kind of a default position for me. I almost omitted the Atlantic sponsored content, except it did produce some good exposure for him—but exposure isn't what this is about. If there is anything I can do, or info I can chase, please let me know. LO for Chris Dorosz (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
request assistance with Majd Ramdan
I have been trying to review the article Majd Ramdan, but am finding it next to impossible to verify the claims made in the article. I would appreciate assistance from other editors who can read Arabic and/or know more about the art world in Lebanon or the Middle East than I do. For example; I cannot confirm that there is a "Salon of International Artists", an "Academy of Michelangelo for Fine Arts", a Marshall Church in Amman, that Lebanon (or any country for that matter) is represented at the Florence Biennale, that Lebanon has an award called the "Golden Shield of the Republic", or that there is such a thing as the "Distinguished International Award". I suspect that some of this difficulty comes from translations, so perhaps someone who can read the sources in Arabic can point me in the right direction. Thanks, Vexations (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
William Turner
I'd like to write an article about one of Turner's niche paint 1, 2 on the Polish wiki. Unfortunately, I cannot find sources that will allow me to write more than one sentence.
Could someone recommend literature, websites or other sources that mention this painting?
--SkrzydlatyMuflon (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
@SkrzydlatyMuflon: You might try looking at the following books. Internet Archive will require registration.
A number of articles contain the word “retardataire”, which is rarely used – it is e.g. not listed in Merriam-Webster. Is there an article here best suited for them to link to, or should they just link to wikt:retardataire? Wiktionary currently makes no mention of a special meaning in art, but one external page, https://www.lexico.com/definition/retardataire, defines it specifically for art and has a sample sentence referring to art, which nicely illustrates that it is mostly used in a derogative sense, but can be used by some in a positive sense (as, BTW, has happened with other names in art history before): “a mature painter, he is frozen somewhere in the mainstream of the past, his work a quixotic attempt to make a virtue of being retardataire”. If there is no article to link to, should at least the Wiktionary entry be adapted to reflect that meaning? ◅ Sebastian17:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not don't think there is an article that would make a good target for a link. The OED defines it as "A person who appears behind the times or who is resistant to innovation, a conservative; spec. an artist working in a style characteristic of an earlier period". I suppose we could just edit Wiktionary to improve that entry. Vexations (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Actually, I wasn't using the ‘big one’, but just their website. But I realize it was a mistake to bring up M-W; we're not here for them but for Wikipedia.
I had hoped we had an article here covering such questions as • Which styles have been called ‘retardataire’ by reliable sources? • Which noteworthy artists are often considered ‘retardataire’? • Are there any artists who take the word as a virtue? • Connection to other names in art that originally were pejorative, such as “gothic”... ◅ Sebastian15:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Linking to museum or gallery websites regarding exhibition or performances
Hi there. I'm wondering about best practices for linking to museum or gallery webpages that document exhibition or performances. I am referring to the genre of webpage in which the details of an exhibition or performance are described. These pages generally are archived and serve as ongoing museum/gallery documentation. Would it be appropriate to link these in a list of exhibitions as external links or references? Would it be acceptable to use them as "web" citations inline? Hexatekin (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I think both of these are ok if the exhibition is very relevant, a one-person show for example. Remember also that such material tends to disappear after a year or two, even for the largest museums. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Done I'd thought of checking the nativity and flight into Egypt works. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reasonable Adjustment. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Half done High Family Expecting a Boat by Teniers 
_260-MP-1018-1_-_DPLA_-_cde1a4394a2c0a5b048cd0247e6c580a_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-1018-1_-_DPLA_-_cde1a4394a2c0a5b048cd0247e6c580a_(page_3).jpg)
_260-MP-1018-1_-_DPLA_-_cde1a4394a2c0a5b048cd0247e6c580a_(page_5).jpg)
_260-MP-1018-1_-_DPLA_-_cde1a4394a2c0a5b048cd0247e6c580a_(page_7).jpg)
_260-MP-1018-1_-_DPLA_-_cde1a4394a2c0a5b048cd0247e6c580a_(page_9).jpg)
_260-MP-11257_-_DPLA_-_8ea24dffbaa66eeeb60516261c380a77_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-11484-3_-_DPLA_-_734ada846e75f097722384a91ea3aa04_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-11484-3_-_DPLA_-_734ada846e75f097722384a91ea3aa04_(page_3).jpg)
_260-MP-11543-4,_260-MP-11543-7,_260-MP-11543-25_-_DPLA_-_dd1b30a58ba44500dcdb4a625ac0285f_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-11834_-_DPLA_-_a9f2d729c3f7dbc1844d969c0d2d112b_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-130-16_-_DPLA_-_96f683f5363a0f3f6b2836045ddcd7dc.jpg)
_260-MP-15791-23_-_DPLA_-_2ea916865927ce7d593057e829bf3213_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-1606-1,_260-MP-1657-1_-_DPLA_-_7950b93e7fb4495b0ecc66622fbc190a_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-1614-5_-_DPLA_-_ed3003e1b49847b1e41db499abf34a8b_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-1614-5_-_DPLA_-_ed3003e1b49847b1e41db499abf34a8b_(page_11).jpg)
_260-MP-1614-5_-_DPLA_-_ed3003e1b49847b1e41db499abf34a8b_(page_13).jpg)
_260-MP-1614-5_-_DPLA_-_ed3003e1b49847b1e41db499abf34a8b_(page_15).jpg)
_260-MP-1614-5_-_DPLA_-_ed3003e1b49847b1e41db499abf34a8b_(page_3).jpg)
_260-MP-1614-5_-_DPLA_-_ed3003e1b49847b1e41db499abf34a8b_(page_5).jpg)
_260-MP-1614-5_-_DPLA_-_ed3003e1b49847b1e41db499abf34a8b_(page_7).jpg)
_260-MP-1614-5_-_DPLA_-_ed3003e1b49847b1e41db499abf34a8b_(page_9).jpg)
_260-MP-17553-1,_260-MP-17553-3_-_DPLA_-_30b883426587600e7e77555c674b8cab.jpg)
_260-MP-21837-12_-_DPLA_-_178ea3220b100868c7db390100017f93_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-21863-4_-_DPLA_-_ecffef9c7df84ec2a99a335145ee4d53.jpg)
_260-MP-23222-92_-_DPLA_-_906cfc32dc05d804240eeac880cc5c04_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-2391-1_-_DPLA_-_1d8742f6eb3393fe43e26d5b0d1be892_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-3020_-_DPLA_-_600b8ca78862ac0ca4b35846a3673f45_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-33227-26_-_DPLA_-_4defbe35938e3186bb99f337378dc3a5_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-3757_-_DPLA_-_a23c0e23201af8a1fbc995bdaa57d650_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-3863_-_DPLA_-_0556edea00ecc2b7bc0410138fcd2d01_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-45360_-_DPLA_-_dd21fc2d2463bfcfe62ed026484b57db_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-45811_-_DPLA_-_646a022290eef8f1fde95d6a1978f84e_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-45973_-_DPLA_-_6e6020edcd980dd8e94d0f9faeb86603_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-46029_-_DPLA_-_4026f85cff3bcdb4bfbe208a05d6a37f_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-47469,_260-MP-47561_-_DPLA_-_35f04d289e5f94b2030effd2aca5c712_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-4851_-_DPLA_-_b8d1d55f8f5f62758ab6b0fcf864a12b_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-5578_-_DPLA_-_c1a289b1d1951cfc02147dc4742ba203_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-7454_-_DPLA_-_8ef5dc0a3e01c76c6f986587cdce76dd_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-7903-13_-_DPLA_-_8e31dd302ed85dc3861c03a5b90aed8c_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-8013-20,260-MP-8013-21,260-MP-38546_-_DPLA_-_58c3c29469aa8d5d14552b60a3c3a4e2_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-8026-95,260-MP-8026-120,260-MP-8026-121,260-MP-8026-122,260-MP-8026-123_-_DPLA_-_bb4a8965242263a2ed129153c4362b5f_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-8922_-_DPLA_-_12c3c5c05b8b3a92b76f05ac36cdaa94_(page_1).jpg)
_260-MP-963-1_-_DPLA_-_9dc37f2abc16d1b02c1b0f3527b33c68_(page_1).jpg)
_260MP-13156_-_DPLA_-_b2e5ad6478aa2511dc0f1a1d1d9baca8.jpg)
_260MP-13650_-_DPLA_-_9a5e75a2f3e1e24944b2a05c11e9df64.jpg)
%20260-MP-1018-1%20-%20DPLA%20-%20cde1a4394a2c0a5b048cd0247e6c580a%20(page%201).jpg){kind=link}
