Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

East Asian calligraphy has been proposed to be renamed to Chinese calligraphy, see Talk:East Asian calligraphy

70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Portal:Arts

I've nominated Portal:Arts for featured portal candidacy, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Arts. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of this user's contributions? He seems to be adding a "Collecting" section to multiple articles that consists of auction results from a single auction house...Now this is a clear case of WP:SPA and probably WP:COI and WP:SPAM too...

For me, however, it raises a larger question- what do you think of "Collecting" sections in art articles in general? Are there guidelines for them? Do we reject them entirely, or do we only include notable past collectors like, for instance, Étienne Moreau-Nélaton and Arthur Jerome Eddy? Thanks, Lithoderm 16:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

To the original point, yes, these should be removed. If he were doing the record prices, or recent major sales etc, or even typical sale prices, that would be different, but this is clearly just subtle spam. To the 2nd, there are no guidelines, but generally we don't object if done encyclopedically. Older (round 2007) versions of Russian icons show battles over this sort of issue, though I don't think there was commercial COI, and many Oriental carpet articles have issues here. See also micromosaic's history. Generally collecting, and, rather different, the history of collecting, are (yet again) weak areas here. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed all of it and left him a COI notice... so he read the COI policy, announced his intentions and affiliation on his user page, and proceeded to re-add the information.

The problem is that now he's adding images as well - and of 3d art and design, the kind of images we have so much trouble getting - so his contributions aren't entirely negative. If there were some way to reach some sort of compromise and persuade him to focus more on images and less on auction prices... that would be great. Lithoderm 17:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

He appears earnest and seems to have great potential despite unfamiliarity with the finer points of COI. To avoid scaring him off, why not avoid undoing his edits such as this, and instead simply take out the COI cite/text and leave a {citation needed} note in its place? That way his contributions are not dumped, but he is given specific assistance as to exactly which parts of his edits are problematic. If he then puts the same problem refs back, he could be further counseled. Sctechlaw (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

He's not doing the copyright correctly on the photos he uploads at all - see eg the one at Janet Scudder which has artist's copyright & also does not release the photo copyright acceptably. Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It does appear true that he is unschooled in copyright basics, and so a review for him is in order. We should point him to this page for the Scudder sculpture to re-tag it with {{PD-US}}; photographic rights are slim because it is the subject that is the point and raison d'être of the photo, not the creativity of the photographer. I'm not practiced in using Twinkle and such template assistance for new users, so perhaps an admin or someone who is more skilled in that sort of thing than I could help him? Sctechlaw (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

We have recently received a report at WP:COIN from a German Wikipedia editor about a possible conflict of interest. A user named Rosapfeife (de.WP only) has been attempting to advertise for an artist with which she has a close connection (see report here). They have been editing a page at de.WP which roughly translates to List of Visual Artists which doesn't have a clear equivalent on en.WP. That being the case, I decided to alert the people who have a better knowledge of artist list articles than I do. If you see any advertorial activity on any such article that may be attributed to this user, I would greatly appreciate it if you would alert us at WP:COIN, here. Thanks for your time. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, please help in the discussion around re-naming of the category conservation-restoration. I've not been able to get any other users to help provide an informed opinion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservation-restoration Thanks, --RichardMcCoy (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you please take a look at Talk:Petroglyph Point Archeological Site see if the article fits into the Visual Arts project and if the importance scale is appropriate? Thank you ... --Bobjgalindo (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Visual Arts Project doesn't assess articles for importance. Some projects do, others don't. Sionk (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No we don't. I've added a VA category though, something that archaeologists always seem incapable of. Johnbod (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

That's because we are artists and they are not *haughty sniff, flicks wrist dismissively, adjusts smock* Sionk (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't fit their little mental boxes. Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I just wanted to follow up with your project and see if any article creations or improvements took place in regards to Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month! If so, it'd be great if you could please post your article outcomes on the..you guessed it...WWHM outcome page! Thanks everyone for all your efforts! Sarah (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Did Picasso fake it? Please weigh in here if you can add something [1]...Modernist (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Art of the American Southwest is under construction, if anyone would care to contribute. Contemporary art in particular needs development. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Hi, would someone take a look at my latest edit and give his/her opinion if this is a correct way to deal with the selected works section? Thnks. Lotje ツ (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks a bit unusual, your edit. I've never come across that sort of wikilinking, to an image file, before. Wikilinks are generally used to increase connectivity between articles, as per WP:LINKS. If there are images available on Wikipedia, or Commons, maybe it would be more useful to create a 'gallery' for the article. Sionk (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your time Sionk. This article where I had been creating a small gallery and with User:Khidekel reaction is the reason for my asking. Is there a concensus about how and when to create a gallery. I wonder if there is what I would call an "example" of what should be "The Perfect" article (layout, images, galleries, references, external links etc). That would make it a lot of easier for me. :) Lotje ツ (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I don't see a problem with the gallery you created on the Dmitry Borshch article. Neither has the original author explained why they reverted your edit. Visual arts articles are ripe for galleries, by their very nature. Sionk (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Those works are certainly in copyright, & were uploaded by a redlink with the artist's name, but the mere assertion of identity isn't really enough, an WP:OTRS ticket should have been done. Johnbod (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point! Unfortunately I'm not active on Commons, so wouldn't know how to do that. Sionk (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Back to the question about 'Selected works', the concept is very questionable for Wikipedia - who is selecting them? On what basis? Wikipedia generally lists things that have some sort of notability. Therefore, works that have some importance, are fundamental for understanding the artist, or have been widely talked about, should be included in WP articles. A list of works should be cited to evidence that they are important, not simply to a nice picture. I would be tempted to remove the list of 'selected' works on the Dmitry Borshch article, but it is currently subject to a deletion discussion which should be allowed to run its course! With Hans Memling, the artist is long dead and his oeuvre will have been assimilated into history and can probably can be referenced. Sionk (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Imo, we should generally avoid lists of selected works - many of which persist from the old EB 1911 & are way out of date, but a well-chosen gallery is fine. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've recently been doing some minor cleanup work using Category:Wikipedia pages with deprecated artwork infobox syntax, having updated it to catch more deprecated parameters. I'm trying to standardize the parameters for dimensional data on art, in particular to associate the infobox data more closely with units.

As I slowly work through the category, I sometimes go across works by a single artist to fix instead of merely trawling the category randomly or alphabetically. I thus came across The Titan's Goblet, which I noted didn't have an infobox. I added one, only to find a short while later that Yomangani (talk) had reverted my edit. When asked, about the revert, Yomangani passively resisted my points with respect to restoring the infobox.

I'd like to be able to add infoboxes in general, but don't want to edit war over their inclusion in articles such as The Titan's Goblet. Do contributors here agree that adding infoboxes is generally to be supported? I'd like to either find a consensus supporting that, or concrete reasons for not including infoboxes in these articles. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 19:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

There are several editors who choose not to use infoboxes and others who use them. Infoboxes are not required. Certain articles benefit from them while other articles don't necessarily benefit from them. Editors discretion in some cases determines whether or not they are included. They are not automatic...Modernist (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This has often been discussed here, though not very recently, and there is a very clear consensus that the local editors should decide. It is also very clear that the majority of the most active visual arts editors don't want infoboxes on art articles. See also Wikipedia:VAMOS#Using_infoboxes_and_templates. Your experience is very far from unique, & I would drop it. The reasons for the dislike include: 1) It makes the lead image much too small, & uses up precious space for images, and 2) the information added is very often wrong or useless. I might also point to the Opera project, who have a more formal ban on infoboxes. Johnbod (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That's helpful. To address the first complaint: are people aware of the image_size parameter on the infobox? The image size can be adjusted as needed. I can also raise the default size if it's broadly a problem. The second complaint is interesting; I hadn't considered it. For the second—are art pages generally so crowded that this is an issue? It sounds like the most relevant complaint. I'm interested in hearing more about it: I can always modify the infobox, or create an alternative: one that uses less space or even simply emulates a captioned image. An alternative would presumably resolve this complaint. I find the third complaint hard to understand; would you please be more specific? {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 19:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

For any veteran editors who have been monitoring the Todd Siler BLP, many thanks for your kind consideration. As you may have read, my COI prohibits my contributing. However it has been suggested that I could help by posting relevant source material on the article's talk page. I have taken the last few weeks to review and source references in an effort to assist those who may have an interest to improve this BLP. In line citations are needed as indicated in the banner and I have created a list with footnotes. It would improve the page to have separate sections for Publications and Bibliography. This too I have included for your perusal. Please forgive any errors in the presentation. It all looks great in a word document but not here. The markups are not done as I am unfamiliar with them having never attempted to write an article and have no plans to do so. I do hope my work meets with your approval and can be of use.(George Cabe (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)).

Does this wiki-visual arts project have assessment process? I created article on New York artist Tony Sisti some time ago. It was given START rating because there wasn't a photo of Sisti available to include in info box. I finally found a photo of Sisti and have added it to article. How can I get article re-assessed?--Orygun (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I've revised it to "C" class, because the article seems fairly comprehensive and adequately sourced. Whether or not the article has a photo shouldn't affect the rating at this stage. Sionk (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for assessment! If you have time, would you take a look at David Foster Pratt and William B. Rowe to see if they are "C" level yet. FYI, Rowe article was origially posted long tome ago, before "C" rating was invented so it was either "START" or "B". Since it wasn't "B" quality, it was START by default.--Orygun (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been away a while. Per my discussion here [2] I'm wondering if there's a consensus re: the use of image galleries in articles on the fine arts, and whether Wikipedia discourages them. Thanks, JNW (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Why would Wikipedia discourage them? By their very nature, they seem particularly suitable to illustrate Visual Arts articles! Sionk (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Those arguments were waged several years ago and the galleries have become an important part of the visual arts project...Modernist (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Pillars of Creation photograph article has been proposed to be merged into Eagle Nebula, the subject of the photograph. See Talk:Eagle Nebula for the discussion. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The largest ever Roy Lichtenstein retrospective opens here at the Art Institute of Chicago on the 13th for members and the 16th for the public. It will also travel to National Gallery of Art, the Tate Modern and Centre Pompidou. Wikipedia only had one Lichtenstein painting before I created 4 last night. I could use some help building these up and some others. I think other important works include Crying Girl and Drowning Girl. In addition, I Can See the Whole Room...and There's Nobody in It! sold for $43,202,500 in November 2011 and Ohhh...Alright... sold for $42.6 million in November 2010. He had an Untitled Composition sell for $10,162,500 May 12, 2010. They must be important. He has lots of works that have sold for several million without articles. Here are the million-plus sales from the first five pages of a Christies.com google site search: (The Ring (Roy Lichtenstein) ($3,401,000, 13 May 2008), Cherry Pie (Roy Lichtenstein) ($3,218,500, 10 November 2010), Girl in Mirror ($4,898,500, 10 November 2010), Girl in Water ($1,874,500, 11 - 12 May 2010), Anxious Girl (Study) ($1,142,500, 8 May 2012), Brushstroke (Roy Lichtenstein painting) ($2,322,500, 8 May 2012), Reflections on the Prom ($8,777,000, 13 May 2008), Coup de chapeau II ($2,841,000, 13 November 2007), Abstraction with Guitar ($1,808,000, 15 November 2006), Interior with Painting and Still Life ($4,562,500, 8 November 2011), Collage for Nude with Red Shirt ($4,104,792, 30 June 2010), Drawing for Kiss V ($2,098,500, 11 May 2011)). This of course ignores Sotheby's and those held in collections that don't sell.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Sleeping Girl Fetched a new Lichtenstein record $44,882,500 today (2012-05-09).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Just did a five-page Sothebys.com google site search and found a lot less than at Christie's, but still a few other notable works needing articles Sailboats III ($11,842,500, 09 May 2012) and Surrealist Head (1,314,500, 10 May 2011).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I am looking at books and most of those mentioned above are not that notable. I did realize that although the member preview ends on the 15th, the public show does not start until the 22nd.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Can someone tell me the proper way to name Roy Lichtenstein paintings that have ellipses. See {{Roy Lichtenstein}}, which has all the paintings with articles and the three that have sold for over $40 million that don't.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think just the title, like Torpedo...Los!. If that is felt to need disaming then Torpedo...Los (Roy Lichtenstein). See WP:VAMOS. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

My question is regarding spaces before, after and in between the periods. You will see a lot of inconsistency in this regard on the web. Also, I think there is a special character representing three dots rather than three periods. What is correct for wikipedia naming. He has tons of works named with ellipses.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you didn't say. I'd try to work out what auction house/museum does & follow that. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

In its Chicago Tribune ad for the current retrospective, the Art Institute of Chicago uses Ohhh...Alright.... In Art History by Marilyn Stokstad (ISBN 0-8109-1960-5) it seems she refers to Oh, Jeff . . . I Love You, Too . . . But . . .. The New York Times uses Torpedo . . . Los!. Christie's uses I Can See the Whole Room!...and There's Nobody in it! and Ohhh...Alright.... The Roy Lichtenstein foundation uses Torpedo . . . Los!. Based on your advice to go with the museums and auction houses, I am making the decision to use no spaces before, after or between the periods. However, There are a lot of these out there, so if anyone wants to correct me, please speak up soon.

Additionally, when disambiguating Brushstroke (a sculpture) from his painting is Brushstroke (Roy Lichtenstein painting) correct?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say so. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The ellipsis with no spaces seems pretty sound. (MOS:ELLIPSIS) prefers this generally, and the only two featured articles I can find with ellipses in the name (These Are the Voyages... and 0.999...) use unspaced periods. Ewulp (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose we should be consistent, at least within the various RL titles; presumably he himself has one way of doing it, even if museums etc vary. Johnbod (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, MOS:ELLIPSIS says to put a space on each (non-terminal) side of an ellipsis (with exceptions not applicable here). To me, it definitely looks wrong to have no space between an ellipsis and the following word (as in Oh, Jeff...I Love You, Too...But...). The Roy Lichtenstein Foundation is inconsistent, sometimes using three dots with spaces between dots and on each side (I Can See the Whole Room . . . and There's Nobody in It!), sometimes using four dots with no spaces (I Know....Brad), sometimes three unspaced dots (As I Opened Fire...). Since there are such inconsistencies between and even within various sources, I would say to go with the MOS. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you think the Ellipses usage rules for text and titles are the same, given the WP:FA titles mentioned above?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say that when it is clear that a title uses a particular style we should follow that regardless of MOS, as we do with eg titles in French. But here it doesn't seem very clear - the various authorities are perhaps rather slapdash, & some probably impose their own house styles. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you also saying rename all of these?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of a clear typographical preference by the artist, I would say yes, but I'm flexible if others differ. (Sorry I hadn't noticed this thread a few days earlier.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Before I start changing everthing around, I am going to try to get an explanation from WP:FA why they seem to be approving things that have been incorrectly. Maybe there is a well-founded reason.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Follow along at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Ellipses_naming_conventions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a move discussion here which raises a wider issue on disambiguating article names for artworks. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

At Drowning Girl, I am trying to link the following quote: The waves are intended to "recall Hokusai as well as the biomorphic forms of Arp and Miro;". Does this refer to Jean Arp, as I guessed, or to Sophie Taeuber-Arp?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Also at Girl with Ball, I need help filling in both Arp and Youngerman in "...Lichtenstein treats planes in the same manner as lines. Thus in Girl with Ball, after having remodeled the lines of the arm to correspond in function with the harmony of the curves, he reforms the space beetween the haiir and the ball in order to give them an autonomous value. The hair is then balanced again, as in a work by Youngerman or Arp, to the detriment of the logical distribution which light and shadow aught to have. The lines and forms exist for themselves but float without refernece to a body, without flesh or substance. Any quiver of life is definitely eliminated."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say certainly Jean Arp and Jack Youngerman (no images on our article but do a Google images search). Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Abstract painter Jack Youngerman and Jean Arp are correct - Lichtenstein and Youngerman were friends...Modernist (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I am seeing at least four naming conventions for his Artist's Studio works such as Artist's Studio—Look Mickey:

1. Artist's Studio—Look Mickey
2. Artist's Studio, Look Mickey
3. Artist's Studio – Look Mickey
4. Artist's Studio No. 1 (Look Mickey)
5. Artist's Studio/Look Mickey

Please comment on whether all elements of the "series" should be named using the same format and which format(s) you think are proper.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Is a fair use claim if the source says no reproduction without consent?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest not using the image if the source says no reproduction without consent; unless we have consent...Modernist (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Better get an opinion at a more specialized page I think. In effect very many museum etc pages say "no reproduction without consent", which we happily ignore if eg Corel-Bridgeman applies. Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The Donald Judd foundation has been strict about image use and my impression is with Lichtenstein's it's wise to be careful, a more specialized response from OTRS might be useful...Modernist (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

At File:Crushed_Campbell's_Soup_Can_(Beef_Noodle).JPG, I claimed an educational use. because edu.warhol.org is the copyright holder and expressly permits personal, informational, educational, and non-commercial use of this photo on their website. I believe this could be equally valid for the Lichtenstein Foundation which claims its contents are for personal or educational use.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI current files at issue:

1. File:Portrait of Madame Cézanne.jpg
2. File:Roto Broil.jpg
3. File:Torpedo...Los!.jpg
4. File:Yellow and Green Brushstrokes.jpg--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

My impression is that, as with Corel-Bridgeman, if fair use does apply, then what the rights-holder says or feels has no legal force. But I might be wrong. Not a question for here. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Where should I go for advice?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You might try the Lichtenstein Foundation Tony, let them know its for educational purposes...Modernist (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Johnbod (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I spoke with the Lichtenstein Foundation today and got a contact to write. I was going to write them tomorrow. However, I will wait until I get a response at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Fair_use_without_consent.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Given the response that I got, I may swap in Lichtenstein Foundation images for each work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Today, I was fumbling my way through a bunch of resources at the Chicago Public Library trying to get 7 or 8 more Roy Lichtenstein painting articles up to DYK-compliant lengths. Today, Bill Bradley was speaking in the same building about his new book. I finished up over 8 hours of research around 7:45. Bradley had spoken at 6:00. I left the building thinking I wasted my whole day doing these paintings when Bill Bradley was in the building.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Senate aside - he was a damned good basketball player with the Knicks. :)...Modernist (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

For Ohhh...Alright..., I Can See the Whole Room...and There's Nobody in It!, and Orange, Red, Yellow, which all sold at Christie's recently, I have been able to find a pretty impressive set of external links (Video of the auction, video presentation about the work by the auction house, press release and sale details). I have included the first three in the external links section. I have also tried to include the latter as a reference in the text. For Sleeping Girl, which sold at Sotheby's, I have not been able to find an auction video. Am I missing something? What should be the standard ELs for a work that has recently sold at auction?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello!
I am working on expanding the article for Willy Stöwer, and am new to this sort of thing. I have some general questions, etc. and could use some assistance by someone who knows what they're doing (unlike myself). There's very little information about the subject, and I've noticed that whenever I look up an artist's bio for reference, often what I get is a copy of what is already on WP -- so, I want to be extra careful about what I write! I have assembled bits and pieces of information, but not really enough to create a viable contextual narrative. Also, I have collected numerous images and have uploaded a few of them to a web album, but do not have WP upload access. Virtually all available resources (what few there are) are in German. Anybody with interests in the following would be very useful:

• Nautical art
• Watercolor / gouache
• The German Imperial period
• Art of the First World War (esp. Naval)
• Commercial art / illustration
• Tracking down hard-to-find sources (mostly German libraries, museums, etc.)
  

My original motivation for coming here was to ask whether or not adding the following sentence would be considered Original Research -- I couldn't find a source that specifically states the following, but it is something obvious to anybody who simply looks at a large selection of his works, (there are example paintings that could be used):

His numerous nautical paintings were done in pencil, watercolor, gouache, tempera, oils, and mixed media, often combining pencil, watercolor and gouache.

Thanks, ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I copied the license from File:'View from the Dunes with Beach and Piers, Domburg', oil and pencil on cardboard painting by Mondrian, 1909, Museum of Modern Art, (New York City).jpg to File:Composition in Black and White, 1917.jpg assuming the date is based on the death date of Mondrian and not the date of the work. Let me know if that assumption is incorrect.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In order for it to be PD, it needs to be life of artist +70 years. Piet Mondrian died February 1, 1944 according to article (68 years -- oops!). -- However:

Proof of publication is mandatory; uploaders making a "public domain" claim on (a reproduction of) an artwork are required to prove with verifiable details that the work was first published before 1923, or first published after 2003 with an artist who died more than 70 years ago. From: Wikipedia:Public_domain#Artworks

• See also: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag

~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Visual Arts for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

A CFD renaming discussion for a large art category. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• And now also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_21#Category:Rijksmuseum_Amsterdam on the same page. There are a lot of museum speedies going through also, some dubious - see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy, if they haven't all passed by the time you read this. Museum Nights indeed! Johnbod (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Come contribute to the discussion regarding which fair use images should be in the article at Talk:Roy_Lichtenstein#Images.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Please give me some advice on using FU images of the original comic sources at Talk:Roy_Lichtenstein#Original_comics.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this car a sculpture/painting or just a car in terms of WP:NFCC?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I feel really good about what I have been able to find for Roy Lichtenstein this month. I am wondering if you guys have any suggestions for modern or contemporary artists who are virtually without any of their works on WP. A few that come to mind are Keith Haring, Alexander Calder, Alberto Giacometti and Jean Dubuffet, but I am open to other suggestions for someone else to research later in the summer or in the fall. Which study would likely lead me to finding the most works worth creating articles for?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to upload any images that would firmly land within public domain from www.artstor.org, and/or give someone directions on how to download full size resolution images from their website (pretty round/about way I found, but works). They have TONS of high resolution art images. I just don't know enough about what should be uploaded and don't have the time to bulk upload or download bulk anything... but specific requests, I'd be happy to look. Pretty sure you need access to the site through a library that has rights, so not everyone can access it... — raekyt 02:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for offering. I think a better venue for this (the uploads themselves) would be Wikimedia Commons. That still leaves the question of what to upload... One suggestion would be to search out some of the images from the collection of "art on DVD" that was contributed to Commons long ago. The category is at commons:Category:PD-Art (Yorck Project). The files are often of reasonable resolution but I've often found the images washed-out looking, poorly colored or lacking in detail. You could also look at pages in Category:Lists of works of art and find poorer quality images there that could use an upgrade. This would skew towards more prominent artists, presumably a good thing. That's as close as I can get to a specific suggestion (the illustrated list upgrades). Riggr Mortis (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I was more looking for anything specific or something, and ofc commons would be the place to upload. I just don't have time at the moment to just mass randomly search and download and upload. ;-\ — raekyt 02:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I am looking for a photograph of the artist Jasper Johns for that article. Thank you in advance if anything is available. While I'm asking, how about a photo of the recently deceased Hilton Kramer? He was an art critic. Thank you very much. Bus stop (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I expect that since Johns is still alive, a non-free-license photo of him would be rejected by the fair use police, never mind that a better illustration of him would be from the height of his career, as opposed to today at age 82. Riggr Mortis (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The biography on Johan Jongkind could use some inline refs. Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello there,

Well, I just read the profile on this wikiproject at the Signpost, and it struck me that now would be a great time to ask y'all about this article: Paul Travis. He was a regional American artist whose article I've never gotten around to finishing. Part of the problem is I don't have any nice images, of him or his artwork. I do have this little catalogue from a retrospective gallery showing a few years ago, and that has some nice images that I might be able to scan. But I've always had trouble understanding fair use and all that. Besides, I'd prefer to not have to go through all the hassle of scanning, cropping, uploading, etc. Can you help? Thanks for your time. Bobnorwal (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried google image searches?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Big Painting No. 6, Drowning Girl, Girl with Ball, I Can See the Whole Room...and There's Nobody in It!, Portrait of Madame Cézanne, Artist's Studio—Look Mickey, Torpedo...Los!, Look Mickey, Girl in Mirror, Golf Ball, Whaam! all passed at WP:GA today. I am letting you guys know for two reasons. The reviewer is not an arts guy and the reviews seem to be modest compared to some reviews, possibly because of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/June-July 2012. If you don't think the articles are up to snuff, I want to give you a chance to comment for the integrity of the WP:WPVA. Also, in the future, I envision nominating Look Mickey, Drowning Girl, Brushstrokes series and possibly both Whaam! and Girl with Ball at WP:FAC. Feedback on which of those may seem most ready would also be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. I've just posted Olmec colossal heads as a Featured Article Candidate and invite any comments on its review page. Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It has been proposed that three individual paintings be merged into Brushstrokes series at Talk:Brushstrokes series.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The way that images of paintings are usually displayed in lists - such as List of works by Henri Matisse - is with a little postage-stamp-sized image of each painting. While this makes them all consistently the same size, it also makes them all consistently very small and conceals the often substantial difference in the sizes of the works.

A few weeks ago, as an experiment, I resized the paintings at List of paintings by Édouard Manet so the image for each painting is proportional to the actual size of the painting (in that case, two pixels per cm, so The Absinthe Drinker - 180.5×105.6cm - is displayed as 210x361px, but the much smaller Le Suicidé - 38×46 cm - is 92x76px).

Having left it a while, and had little in the way of objection but also little support, and had second thoughts myself, I thought it might be worth actively seeking other opinions. Is this worthwhile? -- Theramin (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Frankly I prefer the Matisse list, I think the Manet experiment might work with a somewhat smaller list of works; however prolific lists such as those of Friedrich, Van Gogh, Gauguin, Matisse and others need to be thumbs (200px) or less...Modernist (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree; the idea has much to recommend it but the display becomes awkward, for instance where the Portrait of Victorine Meurent is crushed between the much larger The Old Musician and Olympia. When hanging actual paintings on a wall this can be remedied by leaving space between them, but when viewed on a monitor in a close, vertical arrangement the discrepancy is distracting. Ewulp (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear everybody,

I would like to invite all of you awesome art-buffs to a project called Wiki Loves Public Art (WLPA)! WLPA is organized as a contest by Wikimedia Sweden, with the help and support from our partner Europeana. The contest is much inspired by Wiki Loves Monument, but instead, as the name suggest, the contest focuses on artworks in the public space. I don't think that I need to tell you guys how much is still needed to be done in this field... However, I believe that this could be a great way of make the situation a bit better by increasing knowledge about our work in this field, foster contacts with GLAMs and with the public and get some awesome tools created to help us in our work.

From a practical view, as regulations on what a public space constitutes, and the data available, will most likely differ between countries (and perhaps also between different states and regions?) the material accepted for the contest will also have to differ. I think that it makes sense to have a federalist approach to this. Freedom of Panorama also creates troubles, as this is a contest meant for Wikimedia Commons and not for local uploads (i.e. no fair use!). Hence, some countries will only be able to participate with a more narrow focus (such as for example "Wiki Loves Public Baroque Art"). However, on a positive note this could in fact be a rather good way to make the general public aware of the existence and the effect of a rather, IMHO, negative piece of legislation.

The stated goal with this project, from our Description of Work, is to organize Wiki Loves Public Art in six European countries in 2013. However, I would like to do more and am hoping to make the contest as big as possible with many more countries participating. I know what drive and dedication our communities have and what we can do when we put our stubborn minds into producing great material. If you are interested in public art, enjoy organizing events, think that it is cool and interesting to work with projects that increase cooperation between the Chapters, or would like to work towards GLAM in your country and get some valuable contacts, well then this would be something for you! We are looking for all kinds of volunteers and especially for national coordinators that can help us get things going in the countries and coordinate the volunteer efforts. I therefor urge you to sign up as soon as possible on our list of volunteers! You can find our newly created list here.

All the best,

John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) (aka. Jopparn (talk)) 10:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

On the Talk page of Depiction of Jesus there is a "Requested move" to Depictions of Jesus. This article is within the scope of "WikiProject Christianity"[3] and "WikiProject Visual arts"[4]. That discussion is found here. Bus stop (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep or not? Weigh in here:[5]...Modernist (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I've been helping out editing a series of articles about artists or works of war memorial and stained glass. Often the articles have had inscription wording included in the articles.

Can you help me with the following questions:

• In general I have been changing the text from all caps to appropriate use of caps (proper nouns, etc.). Example that I'm wondering should be not typed in all caps: Ferdinand Victor Blundstone#Works. Is that the appropriate approach?
• Where there are a number of inscriptions, or they are long, I have sometimes been summarizing the nature of the inscription: who is being commemorated, etc. in text rather than leaving many quote blocks of all-cap inscriptions.

I haven't been able to find the right guidelines in the help documents. Is there a guideline this project team uses for when and how to type of inscriptions? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not covered in WP:VAMOS. I'd say that the usual style for classical/medieval inscriptions that are all in caps is to copy them that way. But these are usually fairly short. For longer ones a transcription to normal capitalization is probably ok, but you should mention you've done that. Or a summary, though some people rather like inscription texts. Nb the strictly correct term for a name etc in the middle of a composition is a titulus (inscription). Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been coming across this a bit recently as well, and while the lettering is mostly inscribed in caps, if you want to describe a number, I find it easiest to describe them under a seperate section, and use a para for each block, and to place the CAPS within the small template, with the english translation in bracketed italix after. But if you want to convert to mixed case, as JB says, mention it ('sic'). Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but sic implies literal transcription, including any errors, no? I don't think that covers this scenario. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, thats right yeah Ted. Forget that part of my post. Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, great feedback!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I have another question to run by you: Is "Your Archives" at the National Archives in England a reliable source. From what I've read here, it seems like "Your Archives" is an encyclopedia / tertiary source - and thus not the type of source we could use in references. This has come up around articles about sculpture and stained glass windows.

Examples are: ^ Maufe, Sir Edward (1883-1974) Knight Architect - Your Archives. Yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk ("Your Archives" - Reliable source?) Retrieved 12 August 2012. ^ Collins, Alan (1928- ), Sculptor - Your Archives. Yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk ("Your Archives" - Reliable source?) Retrieved 12 August 2012. ^ Hill, Vernon (1887- ) Lithographer, Sculptor and Illustrator - Your Archives. Yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk ("Your Archives" - Reliable source?) Retrieved 12 August 2012. ^ Gill, Eric (1882-1940) Sculptor and Engraver - Your Archives. Yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk ("Your Archives" - Reliable source?) Retrieved 12 August 2012.

Discussion at: Talk:Exterior sculpture of Guildford Cathedral. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

See Johnbod's comments on Talk:Exterior sculpture of Guildford Cathedral.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I've used "Your Archives" myself and they operate very much in the same way as other wiki based websites - they are contributed to by multiple users. On that basis, I wouldn't consider it a reliable source. Most of the content will consist of transcriptions of original documents held at the National Archives. Sionk (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! We've changed the references in this document and are working through other articles one-by-one. Great input!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been working on a series of articles about stained glass - which, of course, have incredibly lovely images! The problem is that they're also long images and it's tricky to figure out how to either 1) not have as much white space or 2) not have the images get strung up along the side and falling fall below their associated text. For example, see St Andrew, Bemerton and several sections immediately below that section. Do you have any suggestions?--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit link based on heading name change.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that 1) either folks are really busy or 2) it's not that big of a deal. We've got it formatted now so that there's not too much white space - so we'll just leave it that way until/unless there's further direction on a better way to do it. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no article called St Andrew, Bemerton and no link from the Bemerton article either, so it's difficult to suggest anything. Sionk (talk) 09:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Here you go: List of works by Townshend and Howson#St Andrew, Bemerton--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, can anyone improve this article? Night_in_paintings

The subject is notable, but since this is a 2 line stub it can be started from scratch when anyone wants to do it properly. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like fun! I'm happy to work on it over a week or so. I'll update a comment on the deletion discussion page. If anyone else would like to pitch in, that would be great, too.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we move List of found art to List of artworks containing found objects? Bus stop (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but you ought to do a WP:RM really. Johnbod (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've done that. Thanks for the good advice. Bus stop (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've found what I can on the 14th and 15th centuries. If anyone would like to offer a critique - or go ahead an edit - any guidance would be appreciated!--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks good Carole...Modernist (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that you have to write about each specific inclusion at this point, just cover the overall territory...Modernist (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, there are so many examples that follow, that makes sense. I was thinking, though, of finding source information for paintings where there's quite a lot of applicable source info - and still have subsections - but not attempt to do a subsection for each painting, just the most noteworthy ones. That will make it easier to: research + use a consistent approach throughout the document + avoid making the article too long. Does that work?--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, an overview can work - to talk about every painting makes no sense to me. The Hudson River School artists aren't that different from each other - take the point from the text I just added - a fairly broad overview - but you can sharpen it with some specific discussion as you see fit. Certain works - like Rousseau and others really demand some discussion because they are so good...Modernist (talk) 01:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Modernist. That helps for the upcoming sections. I'm guessing it may make sense to go back and reword the 14th and 15th sections and use the paintings as examples. Hmmm. Well, there's plenty of time for that, unless you think it should be done now.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Considering deletion of one, name change of other. See most recent sections on those articles' Talk pages. Bus stop (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Because the proposal gaining momentum is to change the name of Found art, clean it up and make it the primary article, I propose the discussion/agreement needs to take place there. Sionk (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I have recently submitted a new WikiProject proposal that ties-in very closely with WikiProject Visual arts. The proposed project is WikiProject Conservation and Collection Care which, if approved, will aim to create new articles, as well as to gather existing articles, concerning conservation and collection care at museums, libraries, historic locations, archives, and other relevant sites into a collaborative project. While, technically this group could be considered a subcategory of WikiProject Visual arts, the scope of this topic will focus on a much more narrow subject in relation to visual arts. I am therefore writing to your group to inform you of my decision to request a seperate group, as well as to inquire if a collaboration might be an option. Given the close connection between the two projects, and my own inexperience with starting a WikiProject, I am open to suggestions, collaborations, and advice from a well-established group such as your own. Thank you.- AngelKelley (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#Abuse Report: Claude Closky & Marcel Duchamp Prize (both French and English Wiki Page -- 5 pgs total) for the links to the articles in question. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the offer but I simply do not have the required information or the time to mediate this dispute, good luck to both sides...Modernist (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It's on the cover of The Cat and the King ? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Found it myself using the Google image search thingy ! Its Perspective View from the Chateau of Versailles of the Place D'Armes and the Stables by Jean-Baptiste Martin, 1688 GrahamHardy as evidence http://www.scholarsresource.com/browse/work/2144582191 (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see new article at École des Beaux-Arts de l’Indochine. I have created biostubs for the various notable Vietnamese alumni, most of them Hồ Chí Minh Prize winners, but I am not sure if any of the French teaching staff are notable, other than the founder. Does anyone recognise any of the red-linked names? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I did a quick bit of searching - and one of the ways I check notability is to see if the person made it into published books (not sure it's the best way - but it makes sense to me). Based upon that:

• Joseph Inguimberty - passages in books give biographical info, his education and role as a teacher in Vietnam
• Alix Aymé - there's information written about his works, much of it written in French, it doesn't seem to be as much as Inguimberty
• André Joyeux - There was a book written about him, The Colonial Good Life: A Commentary on Andre Joyeux's Vision of French Indochina.

There doesn't seem to be a tremendous amount of material though. If you want to write short biographical sections, though, on the individuals it seem that having a section like "==Instructors==" and then a paragraph about each might be the way to go. If I can help, please let me know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Carole, thanks, I have just completed a stub on Joseph Inguimberty, apart from Tardieu and Evariste evidently the most notable. I have :fr: linked-thru to a couple of bios of fr.wp. It seems like most of them were not particularly notable and I will probably remove the redlinks soon. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, that makes sense.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Carole, spurred by your reply I created stubs for Alix Aymé, very interesting lady, and André Joyeux. The later artists seem less interesting. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I'll take a look!--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I made a few edits to the Joseph_Inguimberty article - and you may want to see some thoughts at Talk:Joseph Inguimberty#Article expansion thoughts. There are some nuggets here that could make for a very interesting article - such as what brought him to Vietnam, how were his student's lacquer works unique or notable, etc.

I'll take a look at the other two articles - and add any notes to the talk pages there. Very interesting topic to delve into (the intersection of French and Vietnamese art).--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

{{Infobox artifact}} has been nominated for deletion as redundant with {{infobox artwork}} -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

and where is that exactly? Johnbod (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here. Johnbod (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there any editorial objection to changing the title of Found art to Found object? If so please weigh in at this discussion or this discussion. Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

NB this article has subsequently been renamed Found object and I've made some basic amendments to reflect the change. Sionk (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Help may be needed at Gilbert Stuart. An editor whose user page identifies him as the author of a novel about Stuart's painting John Bill Ricketts is insisting on a great deal of OR and POV. The sources cited generally do not support the polemics. I also note what looks to me like an advertisement for this book on talk:Gilbert Stuart and three related talk pages. Ewulp (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I added my 2¢...Modernist (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello!

I'm working on Ernest Procter, a Newlyn School painter, and since it's been more than 70 years since Procter died, may I pull down images of his works? Does it matter what the source of the pictures is?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Carol while it's important to add the source; I don't think it matters a great deal where the pictures come from...Modernist (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, great! Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Futures studies#Merge.

I have proposed that turning the page into a disambiguation page would make more sense. It could disambiguate Futures studies from Futurism (hence my posting here).

Yaris678 (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please advise me on this category, as I'm unclear of what it should house. At the top of the page it states that this category is for 'paintings of the Impressionist style', but then has as its subcategories a number of Impressionist artists. Now many of the paintings by these artists are not 'of the Impressionist style', such as much of Manet's earlier output. So should the category be paintings by Impressionist artists rather than Impressionist paintings? Any advice appreciated. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

In practice enough of these artists' works are Impressionist enough to do it this way - it would be too tricky and subjective in many cases to split works into Impressionist and non-Impressionist groups. Where only one or two works could be called Impressionist, as with Dali, each painting is categorized. Johnbod (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Should the "Category" presently named Category:Found art be re-titled as "Category:Found object"? Bus stop (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment is invited at Talk:Art nude, where a proposal for renaming, deletion, or merge is on the table. Ewulp (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Nude in art sounds fine...Modernist (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The article has been rename Nude (art), and I have done a significant edit, would appreciate comments on the content. I have also edited related articles Model (art), Depictions of nudity and Nude photography; comments also welcome.FigureArtist (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody know which of the three versions of Turner's pic here is closest to reality? Yomangani^talk 22:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Alt 2—I commented on the page. czar · · 00:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Other eyes appreciated-- Two Wrongs (talk · contribs) has tried to co-opt the 20th century section on behalf of one artist, and while apparently relenting, nonetheless seems to find the section biased, and would like to remove names and images. Much discussion at user talk page [6] and article talk page [7]. Okay, I've got to return to retirement. This stuff is nuts. JNW (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Art history - talks about important aspects, but Hokusai drew fractals which is important to note.
• Art movement - seems to focus on the West and west interpretation.

I am not an art major or study it, so I cannot make the appropriate edits correctly. Marasama (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"Hokusai drew fractals"? What exactly does that mean? Paul B (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Look Mickey/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

At Talk:List of British artists I've proposed that the very long list is split into two, similarly to what has already happened with List of American artists. Does anyone have any comments? Sionk (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Posted at WikiProject Textile Arts, but they appear inactive

There are two articles on the same topic, Illusion knitting and Shadow knitting. Anyone familiar with knitting tech and Reliable Sources (one version has no sources but good images) up for the merge? MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Illusion knitting is the prevalent term but that particular article seems to be mainly about artists using this method, with a bunch of redlink names, whereas the shadow knitting article is about the nuts-and-bolts of knitting and is geared toward the craft side of knitting and is somewhat more neutral. I'm inclined to change the shadow title to illusion and move whatever is useful from the old illusion to new illusion (i.e. formerly "shadow"). Does that make any sense? I don't have time to do this myself over the next week or so but if no one has tackled it by the 26th or so I'll give it a go. freshacconci talktalk 23:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Where does one request a quality-update assessment?    Here?  - Good... The Willy Stöwer article is listed as a stub, but much has been done in recent months. Frankly, it is about as complete as can be, considering the limited availability of information about the artist. A re-assessment would be greatly appreciated.
~Thanks, ~E : 74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

rated C for all projects. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering how many other editors here are interested primarily in ceramic art? If there is a couple I'd like to start a project to increase our coverage and scope within this subset of Visual arts, get more articles on processes, artists, etc... at least survey and collect together all the ones we do have so we know what still needs done. ;-) — raekyt 13:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year all! I have just had to gut all the collections section here (40K bites) since it seemed to be a straight lift from the museum website pages like this - courtesy of User:P. S. Burton back in 2010 - hey thanks! We will need to rewrite, and be careful about referencing, though these pages are one source - a publisher's guidebook would give a bit more independence. I think we should only mention individual works with articles, of which there about 100 in Category:Collections of the Museo del Prado. Hey ho. Johnbod (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I noticed Common blue , Greenish BlueGreenish Blue redirect to butterflies instead of colors. I find this a highly odd situation -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

In the former case, ambiguous search term are often redirected to the most likely matching article. This may also be the case with the latter; but does a color in the spectrum, other than perhaps primaries/secondaries, need an article?FigureArtist (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

image:The Scullery Maid (L'Ecureuse).jpg has been nominated for speedy deletion -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not upload the rather better, frameless museum [pic here to Commons, & use that? Johnbod (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It was uploaded 6 years ago. You could upload a new version. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone interested in collaborating on the article for this sculpture in Vancouver? This should be a pretty easy article to get to Good status. I will likely continue working on the article on my own even if no one else wants to pitch in, but I thought I'd extend a request in the spirit of collaboration! Feel free to jump right in or leave a note on my talk page if interested! --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

problematic image File:Duchess of cambridge.jpg has been tagged for deletion. The problem is that the metadata seems to say that this is not usable on Wikipedia. Does anyone have a replacement image? -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a GLAM project with the goal of making use of the resources offered by Smarthistory to improve our art articles. Among other resources, they've got 5-10 minute interpretative videos, generally on a single object, but sometimes on an artist or a movement, and some longish essays. Smarthistory is a purely non-profit educational website, now part of the Khan Academy. They give everything they do away - I can't even find a link where you could make a donation if you wanted to.

In general, we've been adding links to their videos, especially when it fits the "one object/one article/one video" model, but also creating articles where the are needed and can use the video or essay. It is also a good opportunity to clean up our articles a bit, look for missing references, etc.

Everybody is welcome to join the project, or just pitch in with some occasional help. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Some website sticks videos online and these become a 'reliable source'? Sionk (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? You don't know about Smarthistory and the Khan Academy? Please read the articles and follow a few links, maybe [8] . Or check out the 60 Minutes story on Khan Academy. Hardly "some website"! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously I hadn't heard of them. Certain alarm bells start ringing for me when we use websites with multiple contributors, articles often undated and sometimes unauthored, chief editors contactable via Gmail addresses. I notice the content is released on a non-commercial/sharealike license, which means Wikipedia wouldn't be able to make extensive use anyway. All the same it seems an interesting, generous project with multiple uses for the wider educational environment! Sionk (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, I shouldn't have jumped on you. Sorry. I guess I'm a sucker for a goal like "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge," except in this case the Khan Academy's goal is "A free, world-class education for anyone, anywhere." I'm not sure which goal will be harder to achieve, but it looks to me like Khan Academy (and Smarthistory) and Wikipedia should obviously work together informally. It doesn't hurt that Bill Gates and Google are supporting it. Smarthistory does have "open" contributions, but they are edited or accepted by 2 head editors with PhDs. I'm sure there are better sources for many topics - there's only so much you can do with 5-10 minute video links - but 5-10 minute videos work in a lot of articles. And if you see anywhere where a link to Smarthistory detracts from our article, please remove it. I'd hate to think I might get over-enthusiastic without somebody catching me! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't have more time to work on the Smarthistory video's - they look good and definitely worth linking to! Jane (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I am working on the Your paintings dataset and came across Zanobi Strozzi, who had this out there for well over a year: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zanobi di Benedetto Strozzi. After I added a quick ref to Vasari the request was denied, but since then I noticed someone came to the rescue and I made the redirect here Zanobi di Benedetto Strozzi. My question for this wiki project is whether anyone here is monitoring the "articles for creation" process, because this looks like a hot spot for discouraging new editors with templating and other laziness and as such I believe it should be shutdown unless the article suggester can be directed to the proper project (such as this one). Clearly there is no interest over there for the Visual arts, or people would not treat biographies mentioned in Vasari (the father of art history!) so casually. Jane (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It was declined because the article already existed, but no I don't think anyone is monitoring it. Johnbod (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't my point. I am not referring to monitoring this particular article's history (it was first declined for non-notability in 2011!), but to the monitoring of the "Articles for creation" project regarding Visual Arts articles. I find it to be detrimental to the encyclopedia and I feel that new users can better be directed to specific talk pages (like this one) to suggest new articles. Jane (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been quite active at AfC and I generally try and spot Art/Architecture related articles. While there have always been a small number of very thorough, experienced editors working at AfC, we continually send out requests for more help. Unfortunately some new participants haven't been so thorough. However, without templating the backlogs at AfC would never be cleared and become unmanageable. If you have any suggestions for improvement, by all means mention them at WT:AFC.

I would generally agree that anyone who's mentioned at any length in a book, 600 years after their death, they're likely to be notable! However, the article when it was first declined in May 2011 only had one line of text and one source, maybe suggesting to the reviewing editor there was not much said about Strozzi. As Johnbod says, by the time the article was expanded someone else had already created it in mainspace. Maybe you could help by adding the sources from the AfC draft to Zanobi Strozzi? Sionk (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. The suggested name spelling dumped in Google search back in 2011 should have pulled up a quick bio in any language that the googler had set at that moment in 2011. As such, the request should have been sent here, to this talk page. If the project is unable to do this, I feel it should be shut down. I understand the idea behind templating, but I don't believe in it for *new* user talk pages. I have personally felt offended by templates on my user talk page, though I understand why people use them, and as an experienced editor, I of course can deal with this. I find it to be an unusually large risk to take with new editors, however. This is why I feel the Articles for creation process is failing. I only stumbled across this example, and don't have the time to wade through the backlog, but just guessing by the number of projects on Wikipedia, there is no way that a small project like Articles for creation can cover the whole expanse of Wikipedia expertise, and in my opinion, they should not try to. Better to let the new editors discover that they first have to make five edits and then they can create an article, etc, etc. Jane (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I did mean monitoring AFC, & I'm glad to find someone is after all! I agree with Jane that a cursory search should be done before dismissing anyone (with such a distinctive name too) as non-notable, although the article did use an un-necessarily long version. Look at what a google search brings up. I left a testy note on the editors page. I look at AFC occasionally but find the rules & templates too baffling to participate. There is a female "Impressionist" artist from Oregon there now who looks rather borderline for notability - Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Dorland_Robinson. And I agree they should ask for comment here - or set up lists by subject area like AFD does. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering the draft was under his full name Zanobi di Benedetto Strozzi I think the mistake was understandable and excusable. But we're always interested to hear the experiences of people who use the AfC process. I agree, because many newbies get their first experience of Wikipedia at AfC, it is important it is done properly. Personally I don't see the problem with the templates that are placed on authors' talk pages, after all they are polite (thanking the author twice) and explain how to solve the problem and where to get assistance. Sionk (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful comments! Let's look closer at what happened: On May 14th, 2011 User Aguether made his or her first edit correcting a reference, and then proceeded to make a series of good faith edits including adding references to David (Bernini) and Badia Fiorentina. In the afternoon of May 15th, the Strozzi article stub (with reference!) was submitted and all edits come full stop. I think the chance is quite good that the user did not understand the template or perhaps did not even read the templated message on the user page: You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zanobi di Benedetto Strozzi. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Cut to a week ago where I stumble across the article and have trouble figuring out this message myself. If I and John (see his comment above) have trouble reading these templates, how can we expect new users to do so? I believe this good faith editor threw in the towel then and there. It would be interesting to try emailing him/her, though it is wel over a year ago that this took place. The second templated message from this month on the user page is just funny - of course they never saw that and it's odd they would receive that since they did not make the resubmission. I see this as a sad little saga of how to discourage a potentially valuable new editor! Again, I must insist that the Articles for Creation process in failing and has become a potential danger to the project, despite all the hard work and good intentions of its contributors. Jane (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You can hardly call it failing based on an incident that happened over 18 months ago! Many articles going through AfC are spammy BLP's or promotional adverts for organisations. It performs a very useful purpose. Sionk (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying that AfC serves no purpose, and I can imagine that it does perform a lot of good work. I do feel however, that it has zero chance of ever wiping its backlog clean and if nothing changes, the backlog will grow exponentially. I feel that the instructions to new editors can better be improved by letting them try their best to let their new stubs survive in the gigantic maelstrom of recent edits, in the hope that someone in the minute editing window between article creation and AfD nomination categorizes the stub so that it will get picked up by the proper project. I am harping on this because I know that both AfC and this project were well established at the time of this specific case and I see this as just the tip of the iceberg in new-editor-discouragement. Jane (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Under the old system the article would have been set up, perhaps tagged for deletion, then put on the visual arts list at AFD, where it would certainly have been kept. A better result. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see Talk:The_Wallace_Collection#Requested move Johnbod (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This user has been dumping biographies such as Csaba Vilmos Perlrott, Béla Spányi, József Koszta and Károly Telepy. There's also a potential copyright issue: the last article, for instance, is essentially this. However, as the user has been spamming links for budapestauction.com into extant articles on Hungarian artists, it's possible he works there and wrote that himself. Either way, this should be looked into. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the problem - these are all notable artists, and the biographical information is attributed according the CC-by-SA license on their webpage here. Jane (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's grant that the copyright situation is in order, and that the artists are indeed notable. (We don't know that through reliable sources that we can verify, but let's assume.) Even granting those, when a user creates 55 awful articles rather than just a couple - and something like, say, Attila Sassy is pretty awful, managing to violate WP:NOTDIR twice, as well as WP:TRIVIA, WP:SPAM, WP:V and WP:CS - it doesn't hurt to let others know and perhaps get interested users to assist in some cleanup. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Very poor indeed, I agree. But at least by raising the problem here we can start to fix the problems, before someone less sympathetic finds them! As you say, in effect they are copy-pasting the budapestauction.com articles and the quoted sources. I decided against speedy deleting any because, like Jane has pointed out, budapestauction.com's CC license only requires attribution. Sionk (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_16#Category:Artist_authors Johnbod (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

file:Battle of Grunwald.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

file:WilliamBlakePity.jpeg has been nominated for speedy deletion. (The Met says this [9] of the work.) -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It's copyrighted. There's no reason to claim 'fair use', because its only used on Wikipedia in a gallery (on an article about something else). Sionk (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No it's not, at least not according to our usual standards. However a small file of the Tate's version of this image already exists File:Pity.jpg and a larger one on Commons File:Pity by William Blake 1795.jpg. This is a unique "proof print" as the IP's link shows. We shouldn't replicate the Tate's version, since we already have it twice. Paul B (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I've uploaded the Met version to Commons. I will add it to the article on Pity (William Blake). Paul B (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason why Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Archive 9 has namespace categories on it? Jane (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes - someone mentioned categories, & forgot to add the colon. A "Find" should enable fixing. Done - it was me of course! Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

OK thx - I thought it may have been intentional for some reason. Jane (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Statue, which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thank you, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC) (From the TAFI team)

• (Discuss) – Madonna (art) → Madonna Kauffner (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Alfons_Mucha#Move.3F. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• (Discuss) – Saint Augustine (Botticelli) → Saint Augustine in His Study (Botticelli, Ognissanti)
• (Discuss) – Saint Augustine in His Cell (Botticelli) → Saint Augustine in His Study (Botticelli, Uffizi)

--JFH (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• (Discuss) – The Consecration of Saint Augustine → Altar of Saint Augustine

--JFH (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The usage of realism is up for discussion, see Talk:Philosophical realism -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)