Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Archive 21

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.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Piero del Pollaiolo to be moved to Piero del Pollaiuolo. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. Ham II (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Per User talk:OrlaBan#Your edits, can someone else take a took at these edits, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Buddhist painting has a name that might be too vauge and refer to a specific Northeast Asian tradition. Can someone look over it and confirm that this is the right title or propose a title change? Immanuelle (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a subclass of Buddhist art, which might be equally vague, but still fine. It's a broad subject. Vexations (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

New article, translated from Japanese or Korean. Pretty useless as it is - could be expanded, or merged to Buddhist art. The text, not the title, is the problem. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Japanese, per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buddhist_painting&type=revision&diff=1072710680&oldid=1072710449&diffmode=source Vexations (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I was considering writing an article about the artist Corbin Shaw. I made a blank draft page in my userspace, and then tried to make a big list of sources for the article. I found quite a few, but after looking at the list, I feel like many of them aren't very high quality and/or independent (a lot of them are interviews and/or from small independent magazines where I don't know how to judge their editorial standards). I feel like this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON, but I wondered if anyone with more experience could take a quick glance at my list of possible sources and give me any feedback on this. Thanks! Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Spirit of the American Doughboy has been nominated for an individual 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. Hog Farm _Talk 14:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Sacred Cod 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. ɱ (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Here I've asked if WikiProject Public Art should be converted into a task force of WikiProject Visual arts. Members of this project might be interested in weigh in. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Project members may wish to comment here. All opinions welcome.4meter4 (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Sadly I don't see an alternative to deletion for this completely unreferenced piece, badly translated from Spanish. Thoughts? Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, deletion seems to be the only option. The article is the Google Translate copy paste of the eswiki article Arte de la Edad Moderna (Art of the Modern Age). The eswiki page is a Featured Article there, so it can be translated in a better way in the future. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 10:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Since the above, this has been in and out of the draftspace again. I've said there: "This is a poor-quality translation, completely unreferenced, of an article in the Spanish Wikipedia. It duplicates a number of articles we already have, few of which are linked to, and uses the wrong English terms the whole time, starting with the hopeless title. A considerable amount of well-informed work would be needed to bring it up to any respectable standard, & I can't see this would be worth it. Afd may be the only solution. Thoughts?" Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi y'all, quick question about standards for editing and cleaning up articles that are biographies of contemporary artists. Per MOS:Visual Arts, exhaustive lists of an artist's exhibitions should not be included in an article - they end up looking like resumés instead of biographies, the information is only useful for the most important/notable exhibitions an artist took part in. There are many articles that have become just long lists of every single exhibition an artist was a part of, because the CV of the artist was used to fill out the article length. Is it appropriate to pare down these lists? I want to help make these articles in line with the MOS, but I feel weird deleting large amounts of content, even if it's just a long, unhelpful list. An example is Nick Cave's biography -- the exhibition list is just too long and includes nearly every show the artist has participated in. When is it appropriate to cull these kinds of lists?

Thanks for the guidance! 19h00s (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that there should be different criteria for established artists and new artists. For established artists, list only the major shows (individual or with groups whose members at the time illustrate the stage of the career of the subject artist). For new artists, I think even minor roles in group shows are relevant as they are 'getting off the ground.' But in neither case should these lists be exhaustive. Rather, illustrative of the kind of shows they are getting in at that stage of their career. Or informative to the reader, e.g., illustrative of the genre they work in. I know this is still fuzzy and subject to the Wikip writers' judgments... 21:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC) Downtowngal (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I usually trim back CV/resume-like listings of exhibitions, limiting it to about 5 of the most prestigious solo shows, in prose paragraph form, not a list. If they have been in notable group shows like the Venice Biennale, the Whitney Biennial or Documenta, I will add those also in prose form and limited to about 3 shows. To my way of thinking these CV-type lists are not appropriate for an encyclopedia, they belong on the artist's personal website or their gallery's website. For emerging artist who meet our notability criteria, I will include group shows (the prestigious ones) in the 5 highlighted shows. In the case of Nick Cave, I'd remove the resume like list of teaching experience, but add some of that content (current position, and maybe the last one or two) in prose format, not list. When I do see a long list of shows, it usually is in a promotional article or autobiography, which can be red flags. What seems most important are the permanent collections an artist is in, rather than a long list of shows. Netherzone (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for the help! Definitely agree that works in notable permanent public collections are the most important, and the Nick Cave page needs some more clean-up beyond just the exhibitions list. Appreciate the guidance here. 19h00s (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello I believe I have a link or citation that would be helpful in developing the Jamaica Art article.Jabriyaheckstall (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I have been recently working to reconstruct the page Pixel art , which was a total disaster and marked as Start quality. After many edits, I think it now warrants a slightly better denomination. The page still requires titanic levels of work of course, but it matches the definition of a C ("The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.") ReffPixels (talk) 09:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The majority of the article is unsourced. If you include references, the article may be promoted to B. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 09:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response,

I agree that its main issue is sources, and that it has a chance of getting all the way to B once sorted, but as it is right now it should still be good enough to qualify as C, since it is definitely not Start. ReffPixels (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Correct. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 09:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ham II (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

What is the point of "Recognized content"? We already have a statistics box on the project page that displays all featured and good articles and is automatically updated. Because it is not automatically updated, the recognized content section lacks a large number of GA and FA articles, and some of those that are included are no longer GA or FA. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 08:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I can set this list to be automatically updated, if that would be preferable czar 12:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

That'd be a good solution, yes. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 12:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Recognized content will soon populate by a bot and when it does, we can transclude that page. czar 03:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Bartolommeo Bandinelli to be moved to Baccio Bandinelli. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. Ham II (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

At Template:Did you know nominations/In the ploughed field. Spring, an editor has latched onto a reference stating "peasant goddess" and thinking that it means Flora was being referred to as "a goddess of peasants" in the source instead of "a goddess of spring". The nominator, who is much more of an expert, has stated otherwise. I would like help at the nomination. SL93 (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved with an approved hook. SL93 (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Aldobrandini Madonna (by Raphael) to be moved to Garvagh Madonna and The Aldobrandini Madonna (by Titian) to Aldobrandini Madonna. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. Ham II (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

These are causing trouble at the moment. At Raphael, two Italian editors are insisting he is properly referred to as "Raffaello" (nothing on talk so far), and at Medieval technology an American is insisting that the piped "da Vinci" in the lead be retained (tons on talk). Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

AfD: Pikachu (sculpture) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Buidhe has nominated El Lissitzky 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I am going to put the draft for Allegorical Painting of Two Ladies, English School into article space. I think there is enough there for an article now. Any further help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm working to expand art gallery Hauser & Wirth's article, and am hoping to bring additional editors to a discussion currently being held at Talk:Hauser & Wirth. If you have the time, please consider stopping by. Looking forward to your input, Maddy at H&W (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to a catalogue raisonné of Ernst Stuckelberg, or the catalogue for Ernst Stückelberg 1831-1903 at the Kunstmuseum Basel in 2003? I'm trying to track down more details about the painting Myrthis und Corinna beim Töpfer Agathon 1897, in particular when it was first exhibited. It seems to be, or at least have been, in the collection of the Kunsthaus Zurich so their collection catalogue may also be of use if anyone has one – unfortunately it's not listed on their online collection catalogue though. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

These libraries do. Might want to start with a reference desk request at the NYPL? Alternatively can request page ranges via WP:RX. czar 06:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion at talk:Vitruvian Man#Relevance of material on the Tuscan Order that would welcome fresh eyes, please? John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dances in Iran#Requested move 4 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

In case you were wondering what Abe Lincoln looked like shirtless... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Anyone care to help expand Murals of Kobe Bryant? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments please on the disagreement here. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Disney Fab 50 Character Collection: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney Fab 50 Character Collection

---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Rogier_van_der_Weyden#Infobox_again and Talk:Shussan_Shaka#Requested_move_4_August_2022 - very quiet over the holidays! Comments welcome there. Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

A section page from Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Glendale) that entitled #Song of the Angels, should be merge at La Vierge aux anges (see the proposal discussion at Talk:La Vierge aux anges#Proposed merge discussion). JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 00:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem: needs another 250 words for a proposed DYK challenge. The solution: drink more. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The very detailed article Early modern art has been moved to draft space by @Johnbod without comment (except from "Back to draft space - still needs a lot of work").

This is a translation from a featured article in Spanish, and is thus very detailed and extensively sourced. Johnbod seems to suggest that the article has issues relating to the terminology in English -- however, as neither I nor the person who translated it are experts in this field, it is hard for us to judge how much work would be required to fix the problems, so I would like to get the opinion of the community.

--> Do you feel that this is an article that we could keep in the mainspace and improve over time, or that it has fundamental issues that cannot be fixed easily?

Note: this article was previously moved to draft space because the initial translator had done a poor job, but has since then been considerably improved, so I think it deserves fresh pairs of eye 7804j (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I haven't taken a deep look at the article but from a first glance, it does seem to have quite a lot of issues. For starters, those walls of text on image captions in lead need to go; most of the article is unsourced and the article flow is very hard to keep up with. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 20:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Indeed it does! The article begins "Early Modern Art is the period or temporal subdivision of history of art that corresponds to the Early Modern Age. It should not be confused with the concept of modern art, which is not chronological but aesthetic, and which corresponds to certain manifestations of contemporary art." And goes on for 96k bytes. This is one of a series of very large WP:CONTENTFORK paid-for machine translations commissioned] by 7804j. In several of them, as here, the problems begin with the title, and don't get any better. A quick brush-over of the grammar etc isn't enough. I think we need a centralized place to consider what to do about them. See the article talk also - it's not just me! Others relevant to this project: History of engraving (see talk), Ancient Greek crafts, The Gardener (painting) and Art Nouveau in Milan (maybe ok, as non-forks). That's from just one of several editors involved, Johnbod (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the image captions have way too much text, and that it could benefit from a better structure as it is currently very dense; however, I am not sure that these types of issues require to take down the article entirely.

As for the title, maybe it is not the best, but from a quick Google search I found quite a few references to the term "Early modern art" which seems to map to this time period (example 1, 2), so it isn't entirely obvious to me that it is incorrect. 7804j (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, regardless of what the University of Basel thinks, "Early Modern Art" suggests to English-speakers "Early Modern art" (of the 1890s, say), rather than "Early Modern art". Neither term is in regular use, if only because of the fatal ambiguity, and it is easier and better to use the traditional art history demarcations of Renaissance, Baroque etc, rather than bring in a vaguely-defined concept from general history. The main trouble is just that the article duplicates much better material elsewhere on wp. The "Oriental art" section is beyond embarassing, and unusable. Most of the article just gives airy nuanceless summaries of political developments, followed by a list of names of artists with vague indications of styles. Dutch Golden Age painting gets one sentence, and this one on Van Dyck has to do for all of Flemish baroque painting: "Anton van Dyck found his audience in England, whose peculiar socio-political-religious situation was an intermediate between the two alternatives of the time" - whatever that is supposed to mean.

The problems vary by article - Ancient Greek crafts is a wierd one - a theoretical dissertation on the concepts, status and conditions of Ancient Greek craft-workers, but nary a word on what they might have made. No links to the 100+ articles we have in the tree under Ancient Greek pottery, or the sections in Ancient Greek art on that, metalwork, coins, mosaics etc. As a template at the bottom of the Spanish says, it is actually a 2nd hand translation of "Artisanat en Grèce antique" from French wp - all the refs are French. Suitably renamed, and with some material added, it could stay. Johnbod (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I have promoted Paint mixing to mainspace. Please feel free to improve however you can. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

For example, the best example would be {{Ansel Adams}} (and maybe the worse, {{Jessica Lange}}, where I have removed the parent category Category:American artist navigational boxes, and then stopped after a few to bring the question here. I've been assuming these categories are for painter and sculptor templates, keeping the categories limited to the ancient arts, and not for related visual arts (filmmakers, photographers, architects, etc.). Opinions? (I'll ping Mistico Dois, who does great work on visual arts navboxes). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

For example, and this is what I'm basing it on, you wouldn't add Category:Deer in art to all the photographs of deer on Wikipedia although, if a painting or sculpture prominently features a deer, it would qualify. I reverted my edits and added back the category to the navboxes pending this discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Just one more thought. Would publishing a book of photographs qualify the navbox in the "American artist navigational boxes" category, i.e. {{Jessica Lange}} above, and the navbox of filmmaker. {{Larry Clark}}. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The category of photography as a visual art has been established for a long time, in my opinion and I suppose most art historians and critics would agree with me, despite the fact that it only appeared in the 19th century and only had the status as an art form recognized in the 20th century. H. W. Janson landmark History of Art (1962) already includes photography. You can see by yourself all the museum categories where the historical photographies from art photographers appear, like Alfred Stieglitz, Henri Cartier-Bresson, etc. Architecture is also a visual art of course, if you remember Giorgio Vasari's historical Lives of Artists, it is dedicated to architects, painters and sculptors. But I think since architecture is very different from painting, sculpture and photography, it would make more sense to have a specific category for architects by nationality. I think when we reach the number in 50 in the Architect navigational boxes, I will start that category. Regards.Mistico Dois (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

About the individual categories. I think if someone becomes known or as an important work as a photographer it does qualify themself for the photographers category, even if they are more better known in other category, like actors or filmmakers. Jessica Lange, for example, does have several photography books published and they have been critically acclaimed.Mistico Dois (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's a visual art, and that photographers belong in the photographers category. My question concerns adding photographer's navboxes in artist navbox categories (i.e. Category:American artist navigational boxes). A deer in a photograph, would that photograph be within Category:Deer in art (categories and navboxes are two-thirds of the "Lists, categories, and navboxes" trifecta). My opinion would be no to both, as a navbox categorized as an artist's navbox brings to mind painters and sculptors and, to myself at least, nothing else. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I think the categories concerning Category:Artists by nationality should include painters, sculptors, but also other visual artists, like photographers, engravers, installation artists, artistic designers, for example. About what you mentioned concerning Category:Deer in art, I think it would make sense to create in a near future a category for Category:Wildlife photographs, like there is already Category:Landscape photographs, for the photographers who have worked in particular concerning animals, like Peter Beard and Sebastião Salgado, among others. There are still very few entries concerning individual photographies, compared with paintings and sculptures, so I think its still to soon for that.Mistico Dois (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Larry Clark published a book of photographs. That's one entry as a photographer in his navbox, yet his template is in Category:American artists navigational boxes. Templates of artists (I mean painters and sculptors) should conform to the unofficial five-entry rule (many now don't), but Clark, for example, has one entry relating to his photographs. Not enough to fit the category, even if it is open to photographers, which I argue it shouldn't be because that makes way for filmmakers and others to be similarly linked. Painting and sculpture are hands-on formed works of art, a photograph of a bowl of fruit isn't a still-life painting of a bowl of fruit nor should it be classified in a similar manner. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Larry Clark does have an important and controversial photographic work, with several books published. He also appears at the International Center of Photography website: [1] I understand your point but there are also other templates with at least five entries, and this sometimes includes only one artwork. I am doing my best to expand them when I locate them. Thats why I always try to start a template with at least six artworks. I mantain my opinion that the artists by nationality categories should include visual arts as usually understood in art history. Cinema is also an art form but of a different kind, thats why they have their own templates. Visual artists who work in cinema and painting or photography can appear in both categories, like for example Template:Julian Schnabel.Mistico Dois (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Listings of photographers or photos in Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Article alerts seem nonexistent, so some lines remain drawn on Wikipedia between photographers, painters, and sculptors. All I'm saying is that one of those lines could be keeping things like Category:French artist navigational boxes exclusively to painters and sculptors. I'm sure Claude Monet might have taken some very good photographs if he'd a mind to, but didn't, and letting Michaelangelo loose with a camera would have given the world some iconic photographs. But turning that around, notable photographers have always had access to paints and sculpting tools but I can't think of a one who could actually use them well enough to create a well-known work. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Have added The Song of the Lark (painting) in case anyone would like to fill it in, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello member of WikiProject Visual arts. I was hoping someone could offer feedback on a draft I created about Laura Berman, a monoprint maker based in Kansas City, Kansas at User:W12SW77/sandbox/Laura Berman I have a COI as a paid consultant for WhiteHatWiki, which was hired by Laura Berman. Thank you for your help!W12SW77 (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It comes across as okay to me, based on Berman having works in several public gallery collections and also some evidence of passing WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable secondary publications. Sionk (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

An article that been involved with (Zinc oxide ) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Zinc white). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I saw a mention to this article on a page I just deleted and decided to check it out. The article is tagged for being like a resume and only has one source. Apparently, this artist is "award-winning" and prominent in Australia but aside from a few short articles in an online search, I mainly came across sales/auction/gallery sites when looking for more information on him. I originally went to WikiProject Biography for the Arts talk page to look for help but it looks like that task force is inactive so I came here. Not sure whether this article can be improved or should just be PROD'd as I'm not familiar with artist biographies on Wikipedia. Just posting here in case there are editors who are more experienced with working with artist's websites and are able to judge notable artists from those who just have a good marketing team. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't fair use per "essential to describe the page" be a criteria for saving this beautiful photograph of a statue? Or can someone transfer it from Commons to Wikipedia? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Can someone please upload this photo to English Wikipedia and fill out a fair use exception for the Dignity (statue) page, I'm not able to do so. Thanks. Being told at commons that it will be deleted there. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Done. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 12:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I have no idea if it will last here if commons gets rid of it, and hopefully the sculptor himself can arrange permission (I left a note at the commons deletion page about possibly making that arrangement). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

New article: Artworks damaged, destroyed or stolen in the 2023 Brasilia attacks ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Please, can you help me to find the name of this painting? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.232.235.244 (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The Embrace is getting a lot of attention, if any project members want to help improve. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Please see: Talk:The Abduction of Ganymede#More common name? Paul August ☎ 14:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

• 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
• 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
• FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles

Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA

All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

• Biology
• Physics and astronomy
• Warfare
• Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

• Literature and theatre
• Engineering and technology
• Religion, mysticism and mythology
• Media
• Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

• Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
• Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
• Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Adolfo Farsari
2. An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump
3. Dürer's Rhinoceros
4. Four Times of the Day
5. Freedom Monument
6. Triptych, May–June 1973

New stub, created by another editor: Prison art.

Improvements welcome! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, could I get some feedbak on my draft: Draft:Bunbury Regional Art Gallery BRAG87 (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Plato's Academy mosaic#Requested move 5 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

A discussion about the artwork Shine of Democracy is underway that has taken a turn that it being labeled as a sculpture is just a point of view. Some kind of natural formation? See Mount Rushmore#Shrine of Democracy as ALTNAME. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I have nominated Vkhutemas for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I have made suggestions in the talk page to improve this article... b'art homme 19:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Licks-rocks: In Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology, I proposed that the article about Inverted Earth to be a prime candidate for AFD because the concept of an "inverted Earth" is a trivial, nonnotable idea lacking any real scientific application in the Earth sciencesand an apparently off the wall and geologically unique topic.

Since this idea started out as a work of art, it is suggested, that I obtain comments on its notability from editors at Wikiproject Visuals Art since the editors at WikiProject Geology lack the needed expertise in visual arts. Would this article be a prime candidate for AFD? If it is agreed that it is suitable for AFD, I will try to figure out how to do it. Paul H. (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Link to the image

I removed the speedy deletion tag at Statue of Jimmy Carter's Commons image page, asking the nominator to both go through a deletion discussion and add the image to Wikipedia. This would ruin the page's aesthetic quality just as the subject is literally dying. Can we try and save this one from the Commons Curse, or add it to Wikipedia under fair use? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Now photograph is up for deletion. This statue is the main artistic depiction of Jimmy Carter, anywhere in the United States or the world. Since this image illustrates the article, keeping it on English Wikipedia would easily meet fair use. More at the link. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The original creator of the image uploaded it here, hopefully that's enough to keep it on English Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

...can someone upload these for fair use on English Wikipedia, especially the main image. Thanks. The deletion discussion may be important per JWilz12345 if this WikiProject would ask the United States Congress to make a change in its law (maybe through Speaker of the House McCarthy's office). Randy Kryn (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

JWilz12345, the law change should be discussed and organized. Maybe Jimbo can assist in this. Some of the Republicans may be interested in changing the law, especially if pointed out that losing things like this image would be a factor. Reminiscent of Martin Luther King's family not allowing use of his and Hall's "I Have a Dream" speech to be user per copyright. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's a map of freedom of panorama for reference, note that Canada, England, Australia, India, and even China has it for public artworks, but not the U.S. This can be changed. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn this is a global effort and not just an effort by enwiki users. Best to air your call at meta-wiki project. Note that there is an extinct proposal on Commons, at c:Commons:Freedom of panorama campaign. Ping the users who responded to my concern on this Village Pump forum as well as one user who talked to me at my Meta-wiki talk page: @Kaldari, Jmabel, and Slowking4:. I'm actually supportive of any actions or advocacies made by Wikipedians of countries with no FOP, like the South African moves and the advocacy in our country. Should the U.S. now have complete FOP, the thousands of deleted photos on Commons, as well as hundreds of deleted enwiki local files, can be undeleted and enwiki articles be enriched with illustrations. The open question, are there any user from the U.S. willing to make this very challenging move? I would expect big roadblocks for such advocacy in the U.S.: note the Gaylord v. United States case as well as several other cases which I included at Freedom of panorama#United States. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• First and foremost, can someone move File:The Three Soliders, Vietnam Veterans Memorial.jpg into English Wikipedia before it's removed from Commons and list it as fair use for its article. As for the worldwide effort, the focus should be on the U.S. for English Wikipedia as, mentioned above, all the other major English speaking nations already have the right. Thanks for your long answer, maybe time, with the new House of Representatives, to follow-up on this. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• I feel encouraged whenever I see a fellow American care about freedom of panorama. I want to be cautiously optimistic about the efforts to grant FOP to the Philippines and South Africa. I don't have high hopes for this Congress to pass anything substantial but for freedom of panorama to be more like Canada or the UK, you'd have to do a new copyright bill, and copyright falls under the Judiciary committee. House Judiciary Chairman is Jim Jordan and I think House Judiciary probably has other thoughts on their mind other than changing copyright laws. Freedom of panorama is probably more important than anything they would do this session, but there will be sculptors and artistic craftsmen that will no doubt strongly oppose any change to the law. Hopefully, efforts in Philippines and South Africa bring positive results. Abzeronow (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I have nominated Henry Moore for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Aurochs has an RFC for how to design its cladogram. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 89.206.112.13 (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

This article has uses svg art of a geometrical representation of the paintings in question rather than an image of the paintings themselves. You can open up the svg and see it's just code for three broad banks of colors for each of the paintings. The real paintings have far more imperfections: https://www.wikiart.org/en/barnett-newman/whos-afraid-of-red-yellow-and-blue-i-1970

I discovered this because the paintings have been coming up in online discourse a lot recently. Would it be possible to get a high-quality image of the paintings on here? There was a prior image, I believe, which was deleted in 2018 per this deletion request, which is why I'm loath to pick one myself. Brirush (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

There have been a few edit wars lately, the latest at Self-Portrait. Between the Clock and the Bed., over adding one source tags. I've thought that museum sources are enough to assert Wikipedia notability and a one-source tag is not needed. A similar question has arisen lately about if a museum source for a painting is a primary source, which I've maintained they are not. Comments welcome, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Why not just add another source? — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 12:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not the point. Probably hundreds if not thousands of visual arts pages have proven notability by listing museum sources (which are not primary), so if editors are tagging these pages with cluttersome unneeded tags it would be best to have a link to assure them that the museum source is enough. This has been a question at some draft articles as well, so it is a guideline which should be clearly described and listed at WP:NOTABILITY as a visual arts notability stance. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

As much as hate to say it, both sides have good arguments, but in spite of that equivalence, I don’t think tagging is the way forward. Instead, there should be a minimal effort by taggers to find a source. If they can’t find one, then they should be allowed to add the tag. My issue with drive-by tagging is that the burden is shifted to the editor from the tagger, and that’s where I draw the line. If you are going to put the effort into tagging pages, then at least put the minimal effort into trying to fix the problem. That’s always been my position and I wish the community would accept it as standard procedure. In other words, maintenance tags should only be added after the tagger has tried to address the problem, not before. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The point is that, especially for major museums, the owning museum is generally the best and fullest source, and certainly the easiest to find online. In the case of basic things like measurements and technical examinations, all other sources normally depend on museum information, since art historians are not allowed to conduct their own intrusive research. They are not primary. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Galleries. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

AfD: Statue of Zhang Side ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the talk page of a new article, Fungi in art, by a new editor. The article needs improving/trimming and could benefit from additional eyes of editors experienced in the visual arts. Netherzone (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Please, can you help me to find the real-life models for these cartoon's paintings: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.169.94 (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Statue of Josiah Quincy III

---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello to fellow Wikipedians who are into Visual arts. I have a general question about writing in-depth articles about artists. How do you manage the resources that you refer to while developing the articles? I'm often overwhelmed by the amount of references that I've collected during my research and often end up not writing it, even if I have the structure right in place. Would love to know the thoughts of the editors here, especially who have worked on GAs or FAs. Thanks and Regards - DesiBoy101 (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

My experience in visual arts primarily involves writing about paintings. However, I imagine that your problem is not specific to writing about artists, but rather to writing articles in general. Here's my usual approach: I personally find it challenging to write an article by starting with a large collection of sources that each provide only small bits of information about the subject. It can be overwhelming to sift through all the sources and piece together a cohesive narrative. Instead, I prefer to start with one reliable source that provides comprehensive information about the subject and use it as the basis for my article. Then, I can expand or amend the text with information from additional sources. This helps me avoid feeling overwhelmed. Hope that helps. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 09:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, concentrate on a few high quality, independent reliable sources to build the article. Once you've laid out the basics you can build the article using other sources. Usually it's a good idea to nail down WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST first. If the artist has been widely written about and/or has works in multiple public collections that's a good sign of notability. Sionk (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Golden and @Sionk for your valuable insights. The idea of using one reliable and comprehensive source as a base sounds pretty good. My focus is mainly on Indian artists since the prominent ones don't have enough content on their Wiki pages. Especially given the significant coverage that they've had during their lifetimes and beyond. So hopefully I can change that gradually. I also see above that the Indian art page (and related) is in the task list for improvement. What kind of development is being expected in there? Some inputs would be helpful. DesiBoy101 (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Art truck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems like it should be an overview article, much like art bike and art car, instead of being a redirect to Japanese art trucks. Airbrushed trucks in North America, or trucks with paint schemes, lights and bells in Southeast Asia, and other such, would seem to lack coverage. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed a lack of Australian painters and given myself the task of adding some. I finished Gray Smith and I'm now working on Peter Upward. I'm new to WP and was wondering how to get a higher assessment of the content. Gray's article is a C-class. Love to hear anyone's thoughts on the process of content assessment. Finrod.Ancalime (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

C seems about right, though one could stretch to B. Frankly these assessments don't matter much at all. Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

If you have input, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Does this pass notability? It is attempted to include reception section. I'm a draft reviewer without specialization in this topic area and would appreciate your feedback. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 16:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Currently the two categories are duplicates and it needs more votes to merge them, check here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 17#Category:Art by country. Solidest (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Your proposal is actually to merge "Art" into "Visual arts", which is slightly more controversial. Sionk (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I would say that my suggestion is rather to turn the three categories (Art, Arts, Visual art | by country) into two and leave one as a redirect. And the discussion of how to do it better is at the link. Solidest (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Requesting an article on ecoartspace.org if someone is interested in creating it 2601:8C3:8600:12E0:AC08:4CF9:B6F1:D63F (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Talk:Moses, Notre Dame

Discussion participation welcome. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

A question has come up at WT:DYK#Portrait of a Creole Woman with Madras Tignon regarding adjusting the exposure of a photograph of a painting. I would appreciate input from the experts here. Tou could respond directly on the DYK page, thanks. There's a bit of time pressure since this hits the main page in a few days. RoySmith (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm working on List of public art in Toronto, if any project members are interested in collaborating. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Oscar Allain#Requested move 6 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Drop by at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive2. I'm trying to get this relisted at WP:FA. It is one of 17 paintings listed at vital articles level 4 and one of 10 contemporary art works listed at vital articles level 5.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• I know I have been less active of late, but this is regarded as one of the 17 most vital painting subjects on WP. @Johnbod, Modernist, and Ceoil: have been active discussants in some of my past WP:VA painting FACs. Of 10 contemporary art works listed at vital articles level 5, I have brought 3 of them through FAC successfully with commentary from Ceoil (all 3) Modernist (2 of 3) and Johnbod (1 of 3). The final nomination that succeeded for Campbell's Soup Cans included Johnbod and Ceoil. I have added significant content and need help working through FURs.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• That was 13 years ago....Modernist (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yeah. I have little interest these days in FURs, and unfortunately little time available for wiki, but wish you the best given the series' huge importance in 20th c art history. Ceoil (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I want to bring to the attention of this community a draft I have for the Art Bridges Foundation. The foundation is an art lending nonprofit aimed at sharing American art across the country. Currently, there is not a Wikipedia article on Art Bridges, however there are enough qualified sources for there to be one. Based on these sources, I have created in my user space a draft on the Art Bridges Foundation.

I'm asking others to review, because I am representing Art Bridges Foundation through my work with the Walton family office and have a conflict of interest. If there are any questions, please feel free to ask them on the Talk Page of the draft. Thank you Kt2011 (Talk · COI:Walton family) 13:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems ok to go to me, but I don't know how to handle the AFC templates. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I see Andy Warhol prints all over the internet published by Sunday B Morning. Can anyone help me find a WP:RS that explains these prints. It seems that they do prints of Marilyn, Flowers and Soup Cans and may also do Mao and Dollar prints. Non-RS or at least questionable RS versions of the story are here and here--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

• I have added content to the Warhol article regarding this issue in the 1970s section. These are not the best sources, but it is what I could come up with.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that The arts, 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 — MusikBot talk 00:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Hi. I have a draft article about Gjura Stojana in my userspace and wonder if one or two people from this WikiProject would mind just giving it a once over to look for any issues before I move it into mainspace. It's not exactly my first rodeo, but I'd like someone else to look it over for good measure since I learned about the subject through one of his distant relatives. Nobody asked me to write it, and I don't stand to gain anything, but I guess that might constitute something like a weak COI so I'll err on the side of caution and ask for feedback first. See also my note on the talk page. Thanks! — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Just marking this as done (though if it's of interest to anyone else, they're of course welcome to take a look, too). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Susanna and the Elders (Gentileschi, Stamford) § Article title (move?) for a discussion on how to disambiguate a painting by Artemisia Gentileschi, which I think has a bearing on how we disambiguate other works by her and by her father Orazio Gentileschi, and also by other pairs (etc.) of artists who share a surname. Ham II (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Would someone here please take a look at Composition X (Kandinsky), it belongs in this Project, I think, but is entirely in French. I noticed due to the high number of infobox entries that weren't in english.Naraht (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks an IP user un-translated the article from English, for some reason. Thanks for flagging it and fixing it. Cheers! ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

(But not the same art.)

"Draft:Hair in African sculpture" has been declined, but is promising, I think. It's the creation of a student who hasn't reappeared since February. It needs the attention of somebody with access to a small amount of academic material (none of which seems obscure or promises to be elusive).

"Draft:Celebrating Matsu" was created (as part of "WikiProject Taiwan 1000") by someone who disappeared in late September; either it's obscure (even contradictory) in places (see Draft talk:Celebrating Matsu) or I'm just thick. I think it needs the attention of somebody who can get hold of, and can comprehend, material on art published in Taiwan and in Chinese -- which also neither seems obscure nor promises to be elusive, (I neither am in Taiwan nor read Chinese.)

It seems obvious to me that both of these drafts are about subjects that are notable, both in Wikipedia's rather bizarre sense and in the everyday sense of the word. Anyone here up for tinkering with either of these drafts? -- Hoary (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Does cover art need to be updated to incorporate content regarding artwork associated with digital publications?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I have nominated Matthew Brettingham for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

At WP:VA, I am Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5#Add_View_of_the_World_from_9th_Avenue, i am nominating View of the World from 9th Avenue for its prominence as a work using watercolor and colored pencils. I don't think we have either a watercolor or colored pencil work at VA. All of Georgia O'Keeffe's watercolor work seems to be redlinks. What are the most prominent watercolor works and colored pencil works in art history?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

If you'd added Category:Watercolor paintings to the articles (don't worry, I've done it now), you'd have got an idea from the 80 works there. Category:Drawings is even larger. Many works in both include elements in different colours & media. Of course, what is famous about View of the World from 9th Avenue is the printed reproductions. For O'Keeffe, The Flag (O'Keeffe painting) and A Storm are non-oils, as are many works in articles on series. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Johnbod, thx for the quick response and action. A mouseover on O'Keeffe's template presents those as paintings. Should the intro verbiage be modified? Where would you rank View among non-oils and against these O'Keeffes? I am still trying to understand how vitality of WP:VA differs from notability and importance. Thus, I am not sure what scale/dimension I am asking you about. Feel free to advise as you see fit.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Watercolours are still "paintings" as they use a brush. I don't worry too much about VA, & this project doesn't have "importance" ratings, as really it's impossible and pointless to try & weight say View against Vitruvian Man or other Leonardo drawings. The overall term museums often use is "works on paper" & I think that group should be represented in the VA lists. Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod:, I've added the category you mentioned to The Flag (O'Keeffe painting). What category should A Storm be in?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, why do we not have a Category:Magazine covers?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, we could I suppose. I've now set up Category:Pastel drawings (adding A Storm) and Category:Pastel, which need to be populated, and perhaps gouache needs similar treatment. Johnbod (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• It was interesting to hear you mention this in juxtappostition to Vitruvian Man, which is already listed at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Arts#Specific_works_of_visual_art_(302/300_articles), I am just hoping this is the best example of watercolor painting vitality and can get support.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected, Vital articles includes Twittering Machine among its 302 specific works of art, which I have added to Category:Watercolor paintings. It also includes The Birds of America and Kunstformen der Natur and might include Young Hare by Dürer if we did not already have 2 of his works.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    • The Birds of America and Kunstformen der Natur should be regarded as prints. Watercolour was involved in the original creation, but do we even know where those are? The birds were hand-coloured after printing, mostly by skilled craftspeople, but that is different too. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
      • I don't know about Kunstformen der Natur, but the watercolour originals for The Birds of America are exhibited at the New-York Historical Society. Obviously both works are better known for being mass-produced illustrations than for their watercolour originals, but then so is View of the World from 9th Avenue. Cobblet (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
      • I think User:Cobblet was appeasing me that watercolors will be adequately represented if my nomination fails. Kunstformen der Natur is counted in the 302 specific visual arts works, while The Birds of America is in the Specific works of literature.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
        • That seems silly; the text, initially published separately as Ornithological Biography, or, An account of the habits of the birds of the United States of America is emphatically not what BoA is famous for. Johnbod (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
          • Within Specific works of literature section BoA is in the Reference works subsection along with The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care, Guinness World Records, Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's Dictionary. Should it be moved to the Other media subsection of the Specific works of visual art section along with KdN?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
            • That move would make sense. Cobblet (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
              • User:Cobblet, I nominated that move.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nathan Hale (statue)#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sagrestia Nuova (New Sacristy)#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Statue of Roberto Clemente (Louisville, Kentucky)#Requested move 8 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Francisco Venegas#Requested move 11 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Larry Koon#Requested move 12 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:7:11AM 11.20.1979 79°55'W 40°27'N#Requested move 4 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 06:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

New stub: Oprah Winfrey (painting) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Inviting project members to weigh in here:

• Category talk:Statues

---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

May be of interest to people. Happy New Year to all! Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

At Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5#Listing_of_I_Love_New_York 5, we are discussing the proper listing of I Love New York, which is the famous first use of the Heart symbol  5 as a logograph for the word love, leading to ubiquitous use of I ❤... in marketing materials worldwide. It got listed as a specific work of visual arts. I want to make sure that no one has a problem with moving it from specific works of art. If anyone has an opinion, drop a note there preferably or here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

A request to uppercase 'Rotunda' is ongoing at Talk:United States Capitol rotunda#Requested move 22 January 2024, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

What are the most important visual artist collectives articles? Where does Der Blaue Reiter rank in comparison to School of Paris, COBRA, Nazarene movement, Barbizon School, Die Brücke. Do we have an article for the groups that brought forth Impressionism or Cubism?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:First Impressionist Exhibition, created by GranCavallo at the suggestion of Albiart, an important article topic that's long overdue. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Check out what GranCavallo has built in three days. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

And is now mainspaced at First Impressionist Exhibition. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Edward Clark (artist)#Requested move 30 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a discussion in progress at Talk:Abigail Adams#Caption which could use more input, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This is still occurring if others would like to join in. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm considering splitting History of tattooing into a separate article on indigenous and traditional tattooing practices. Given the size of the article, it doesn't feel very readable and I think having a separate page would allow people to expand on the contemporary practices of these traditions. I'm alerting some of the WikiProjects attached to the article; please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this idea :) ForsythiaJo (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone know the name or creator of this painting? First saw it earlier today, and I don't think we have an article on it. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Queer art#Requested move 11 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Killarnee (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Saints, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Ham II (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead section too short. If anyone could summaries points. Also requires additional sources. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that there was a request for a List of Renaissance artists on the requested articles page, so I created a draft: Draft:List of Renaissance artists. I honestly can't believe that Wikipedia didn't already have such a list. I've already added a few of the most important Renaissance artist. I'm going to add a few more artists over the next day or two before I move the article to mainspace. If anyone would like to help, please do. GranCavallo (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow, that is very short! Personally, I think categories are the way to handle this, plus we have lists at Old Master, List of Catholic artists, and probably other places. See Category:Lists of artists. Generally, such lists get low views. Either they are hopelessly long, or people complain of subjective selection criteria. Johnbod (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of seeing how the list grows, and likely in favor of mainspacing. It seems to be topic-worthy if done well. As for readers, lists get more views when they are added to the 'See also' sections of the named topics. Lists, navboxes, and categories are all ways to navigate, and are usually considered of equal value and usage. If a functional list covers the topic other editors eventually will expand it in various ways, and it will be interesting to check if this works as GranCavallo envisions. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I must say I wouldn't approve of adding a link to SA, presumably to each bio on the list. Or another navbox. What we need is better articles, not more lists and navboxes. I'd add that things on "articles requested" are best approached with great caution; most are unsuitable. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the list may get unwieldly if it gets into the hundreds of entries. Well-done lists and navboxes are fine, and "bring" readers to the existing better articles and not-so-good articles which, upon being found, may be improved. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi y'all, quick question about this project. Would this talk page be the place to discuss issues/ideas around visual arts coverage on Wikipedia in general? I have a lot of thoughts and observations I want to add about structural issues facing arts coverage (declining sources of coverage, structural issues in arts scholarship knowledge dissemination, technicalities in the VisArts manual of style), but I don't want to just dump those thoughts in an unhelpful place. I've started doing some intensive content edits recently on artist bios for the first time, and I've just noticed some trends/structural issues that don't seem to have been identified clearly anywhere in the Visual Arts style guide or project discussions. Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is the correct place to discuss visual arts coverage on Wikipedia. GranCavallo (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Circling back because my original message seems so vague and self-important in retrospect. Was just feeling a little sad about the state of contemporary visual arts coverage specifically, but I don't think any of the structural problems I "identified" are actually that novel or new to anyone here. Sources are declining and being gated on all fronts, not just the arts; the relationship between Wikipedia and arts scholarship/museums is complicated, that's not a new observation; the art world loves keeping things exclusive, including information, which is not any sort of revelation; and it is inherently difficult to evaluate the notability of artists in the context of an art market that often arbitrarily decides who gets a lifetime of sustained, detailed coverage in reliable sources and who doesn't, one of the main struggles that no one here is probably new to. Just closing the loop here. Thank you @GranCavallo and @Johnbod for your help. 19h00s (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Your view is welcome at Talk:William_Shakespeare#Lead_image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Art festivals in the United States has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Vegantics (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Now withdrawn Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Heptanese school (painting)#Requested move 22 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. BilledMammal (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Art awards by country has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. This is another one about the usage of "art" versus "visual arts", like the one for "Art festivals in the United States" above. Thank you. Ham II (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Link corrected! Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

...at Talk:Mount Rushmore#Opening image. The three 'candidates' are presented at the top of the discussion. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

An article in the scope of this Wikiproject is currently up for Featured Article review. Input is welcomed to decide if this article is worthy of the FA rating. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Since I posted the above notice, there has been more interest and the review process has progressed further, which I'm very grateful for. We still need more reviewers to take part, following the instructions at Wikipedia:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE. A great deal of work has gone into both the article and the review; this is a chance to make a community decision on the results. Thanks in advance for any help! MartinPoulter (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello there! I'm reaching out to this WikiProject on behalf of my employer, Poster House, an art and design museum in New York. On the Poster House Talk page, I've proposed a new Exhibition history section for the article. My section draft details some of the more notable exhibitions the museum has held over the past five years and draws from press coverage in reputable outlets like the Guardian and New York Times.

If that sounds interesting to any of the editors who frequent this WP, please follow this link. Feel free to leave feedback on the draft or, if you think it's good enough as-is, add it to the Poster House article. Thanks! Aaron at Poster House (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park) about the war memorial's naming history that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 15:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I think there is somone going round putting in "15 January" in artist birthdates where even the year is uncertain, never mind the day. Here he is at Donatello. Unfortunately it is one of those ips where the address changes with each edit. I don't know if it is just artists he does. Is there a way of getting a list of WP 15 Jan birthdays (I don't know if he touches Wikidata)? For dates before say 1800, as I haven't seen him changing a date that's there, just adding 15 Jan when there is no date. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I recently stumbled upon an article about a Greek artist named Vassilis Vassili. Although the subject of the article did not seem to originally create the article, he did recently start editing it substantially (and based on the page's edit history, may have edited substantially in the past using IPs or another similarly-named account). I have been educating him about the conflicts of interest policy on his Talk page. I am coming to this WikiProject page to request help with cleaning up the article in accordance with the standards for visual artists' articles on Wikipedia. I am assuming y'all are familiar with what these standards are. I, in contrast, am not familiar with these standards, and know very little about art overall. I assume that a lot of the information needs to be removed. I can help with grammar cleanup, matching info to sources, and stuff like that, but I don't know how much info should be retained on the page in the first place, and I was hoping y'all could help with that. Thank you! Gottagotospace (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Madonna#Requested move 1 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Three Ages of Man and Death#Requested move 28 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Polyamorph (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello there. I've a question about the attribution of a painting and don't really possess the background necessary to evaluate the matter authoritatively. I've been working on a rewrite of the Spartan lawgiver Lycurgus. There seem to be two paintings from the late 18th century of him:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jean-jacques-francois_le_barbier_called_le_barbier_laine_la_magnanimit060915).jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lycurgus_of_Sparta,_Jean-Jacques_Le_Barbier.jpg

They have similar poses etc. The first is attributed to Jean-Jacques-François Le Barbier. The second is attributed in the metadata to Jacques-Louis David with a source. But an image of the second is included in one of the references supporting the attribution of the first: https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-6338034. The former's attribution seem rather convincing. Is the second wrongfully attributed? Ifly6 (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, according to Christie's "Le Barbier worked out his composition in a handsome oil sketch (37 x 45 cm.) that was purchased by the Musée de Blois in 1936 as a work by David (fig.1). The sketch, which bears a false monogram, was first identified as Le Barbier’s study for the present painting in 1990 by David A. Wisner." Blois/Commons seem reluctant to let go of the more prestigous name. Their's is clearly a sketch & far smaller. Johnbod (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard about the reliability of Dani Cavallaro's work. Members of this WikiProject may be interested in joining as her publications are cited in multiple articles related to Gustav Klimt. The relevant thread is at § Dani Cavallaro. Thanks! Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Self-explanatory (not about the Wikipedia Monument). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I have nominated Middle Ages for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Borsoka (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Gettysburg Cyclorama has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

An alert that there are now many ongoing deletion nominations of Henri Matisse paintings, such as Goldfish (1912), Bathers with a Turtle (1908), his La Danse images, his Notre Dame paintings, etc. The same for Derain. Too many to keep up with on July 4 and 5, and seems to be taking a sieve to Wikipedia collections of these paintings, most of Matisse's have articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The deletion nominator's complaint is that even though they were made before 1929, a paintings counts as being "published" from the point when official copies are first made available to the public. I'm not sure how to go about finding out the dates of when the first copies of these paintings were first made available.

As I understand it, works are considered to be in the public domain 70 years after the death of their creators if they were published post-humorously or never technically published. Matisse and Derain both died in 1954, which was 70 years ago. That means that these paintings will all definitely be in the public domain by the end of the year, even if they were technically first published after 1929.

I hope this helps. GranCavallo (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This is semi-correct. There are some odd quirks that come from the "publication" rule. There are definitely instances where a work can still be copyrighted in the United States 70 years pma. It's not common, but it can happen, mostly when it comes to works first published outside the U.S., and usually only in select American states that are under the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit (you can read more here). Unfortunately, because WikiMedia's HQ is in California, that means all US WikiMedia entities are also subject to the 9th circuit's ruling. So to prove that these works can stay, someone would need to find the first instances of their publication abroad and/or in the U.S. If you check the Hirtle chart, I believe these works would be categorized under "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations" in the first "Special Cases" example ("1 July 1909 through 1978").

I would note that these deletion requests may seem a bit overwrought, but the nominator is not incorrect to point out the issue. Les Héritiers Matisse (the legal managers of Matisse's estate) still claim copyright over basically everything Matisse made and they're represented by the Artists Rights Society on U.S. copyright issues, so they clearly care about their copyright. Obviously they're probably just making broad claims to preserve (read: profit off) as much intellectual property as they can and ward off would-be re-users of the artworks, but they could definitely be right about any number of the works. I'm going to re-post part of my comment on the first linked deletion request to give my two cents.

I agree that Wikipedia would be better off if these images were kept. But without proof, we can't know for sure that these would pass legal muster as public domain in the (entire) United States. 19h00s (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Each of Matisse's paintings with articles should have a fair use template on it so the images are kept. Simple as that. The only reason those templates haven't been placed before is that we thought the early 20th century paintings were in public domain. I've asked the nominator to place those templates but not done as far as I know. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

A further attempt to cull Wikipedia's art collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that List of public art in Chicago, 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 — MusikBot talk 00:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eliseu Meifrèn#Requested move 20 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aprilajune (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Kiosko (Hendrix) has been nominated for deletion, if any project members want to weigh in or help expand the article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

An attempt to lowercase some of them most well-known names of artists groups is now at Talk:Bolognese School#Requested move 26 July 2024. They include the Hudson River School which has very few equals as a known uppercased name. I've added the overwhelming n-grams for uppercase of the Hudson River School at the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, more comments please (there)! Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Ham II (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

We are approaching the 10th anniversary of this 2-line unreferenced stub. Amazingly, it does seem to be a thing, with two books from US uni presses, and so on. Can anyone make it more respectable? Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Natural dye has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of works by Dan Flavin#Requested move 8 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 04:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• John Quincy Adams (Bingham)

---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rococo Revival#Requested move 21 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I have created a prototype of an infobox for artist collectives (after struggling to use the general artist one for graffiti crews) and the instructions for creating infoboxes says to seek advice from the relevant WikiProject before publishing it - which I believe is this one. The infobox is here in my sandbox. I appreciate any feedback very much! -- NotCharizard ^🗨 12:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, this will be appropriate for very few articles, I think. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi WikiProject Visual Arts Members,

I hope this message finds you well.

I have been working on a Wikipedia article draft about the artist Machiko Edmondson and have placed it in my sandbox for initial review. I would greatly appreciate it if members of WikiProject Visual Arts could take a look and provide feedback on the content, formatting, and compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Sandbox Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xenopoiesis/sandbox

Summary:

Subject: Machiko Edmondson, an artist with extensive exhibitions in the UK and internationally.

Areas for Feedback:

Compliance with notability and verifiability standards. Formatting and structure improvements. Clarity and neutrality of the content. Thank you in advance for your time and assistance! Xenopoiesis (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?)#Requested move 23 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Burney Relief has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion about the creation of Brachiosaurus Replica at Talk:Brachiosaurus Replica, if any project members are interested. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The Nightmare has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

List of artwork at the United States Capitol complex has been nominated as a featured list candidate; the nomination can be found here. Since the list 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. Thanks in advance! SirMemeGod  13:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Arts Club of Chicago has been nominated for a 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. Spinixster (trout me!) 01:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Stationery, 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 — MusikBot talk 00:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

There is a requested move discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Textile Arts#Requested move 19 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the relationship between The arts, Art and Visual arts at Talk:Art#Art vs The arts vs Visual arts merges that may interest members of this WikiProject. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The page for "Artist" is in a depressing state. When compared to pages for "Scientist" and "Engineer" it is obviously below the quality we should expect. Even compared to more specific occupations, such as "Plumber", "Aircraft pilot," and "Graphic designer," the page for Artist looks embarrassingly thin and poorly sourced. For example, Artist has an entire section on "Dictionary definitions" that seems to copy paste dictionary definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary without actually citing the dictionary, or quoting its definitions.

I understand that some high level articles don't get much attention as people are more interested in their niche interests, but this is among the worst pages I've seen on Wikipedia for topics that are taught at the elementary school level. The park by my university has a more comprehensive page. It is beyond my expertise to bring this page up to the level I'd expect for such an important topic, so I'm posting it here in the hopes it attracts the attention of an expert in Theory of art, or Art history. Thank you for your help and time. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Some links to newly created articles about recent political art in the U.S., if anyone's interested in helping out:

• Crooked and Obscene
• The Donald J. Trump Enduring Flame
• In Honor of a Lifetime of Sexual Assault
• The Resolute Desk

--Another Believer _(Talk) 18:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

In Honor of a Lifetime of Sexual Assault now at AfD ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Louvre has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Eight Great Events in the Life of Buddha#Requested move 24 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Royal Library of Turin be moved to Biblioteca Reale, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Ham II (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Romaine Brooks has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

User:2025Newbie/sandbox

Hello, I’m an aspiring Wikipedia content creator and complete beginner. This is my first article and I would welcome all criticism and advice on how I can improve. I still have some citations to source for this – these are marked by * in the text.

What am I getting wrong about the ISBN’s cited here?

My interests are Contemporary Art, Physics, Philosophy and Literature. 2025Newbie (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The issue with the ISBNs was that you put "ISBN" in the data field after the "isbn=". You don't need to do that, the Wikimedia markup software inserts that automatically for you when it renders the page.

|isbn=978-1-9993285-2-8 is correct.

|isbn=ISBN 978-1-9993285-2-8 is incorrect.

Hope that helps in the future. (I've already fixed it in your draft.)

GranCavallo (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh thank you so much! That is really helpful. 2025Newbie (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I would like some feedback on an infobox for artist collectives currently in my sandbox. Does it seem suitable for publishing Thank you. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 14:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

You should add a "name" field. That way, if the page title contains a parenthetical disambiguation or is a shortened version of the full name, it can be manually overridden in the infobox. GranCavallo (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Repeating my comment elsewhere: "Personally, I'd much rather not see this, or anything like it, used. Almost everything in it will be disputable or disputed, or is really vague. It seems a classic example of where an infobox is just unhelpful clutter, and will displace or make too small an image that would be more helpful." Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hewo! I have a question: how do I join a project? Bella. (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

To join this project, all you have to do is add your name to the Participants list on the project page. Joining other projects is the same, but some other projects have their participants lists on separate subpages. You can find more Wikiprojects at the WikiProject Directory. GranCavallo (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

...has been relisted. This AfD and relisting may be of interest to editors of this Wikiproject. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I have just created Draft:Cultural impact of David Lynch. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Should the visual arts Wikiproject template be added to the talk page of films such as 'Lust for Life (1956 film) and others which focus on painting, sculpture, or visual artists? I'd say yes, and if nobody "stops me before I template again" will add it to such films at some point. Had already placed it on the Thomas Crown Affair page when I thought of asking here. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi y'all -- just popping in to say I'm looking for feedback on the Cady Noland article, I recently revamped/greatly expanded it and have been awaiting GA review. Any feedback is welcome to help improve it, I'm trying to get a handle on how to craft a complex artist bio completely and correctly (this is my second attempt after Sam Gilliam), I really enjoy doing this so I want to be sure I'm getting everything correct style- and structure-wise so I can repeat this process with some other high-profile artists with languishing articles (in addition to lesser known artists and those needing new articles, but obviously it's a different task when dealing with an artist on whom there is an abundance of literature). Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article? 19h00s, your extensive work on the page deserves a Feature. Noland's work is...interesting...and then I saw what some of it was auctioned for, which moves it to "Interesting!". Randy Kryn (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

You have made great improvements to this article! I will try to look at it more closely soon and make additional edits or leave any suggestions I have on the talk page. Good luck with the good article review! Asparagusstar (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

As is often the case, the lead is rather short for an article of this length. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

White Mountain art has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Rembrandt has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter street mural (Springfield, Massachusetts) has been nominated for deletion, if any project members are interested in weighing in or making improvements. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Edson Chagas has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi all. First off, feel free to tell me I'm barking up the wrong tree or barking about something that's a non-issue. Don't want to just waste my/your time.

I've been editing on visual arts-related articles for a few years now, have tried my best to help improve articles and add authoritative sources. But I've noticed that there seems to be a much more developed culture and set of editing norms for other, more "popular" topics on Wikipedia that visual arts just don't seem to have. An example - there is a very specific set of criteria for editors creating or adding to articles on musical albums, and a very well-developed culture about how to structure/style such articles. I can't think of such a thing for even a basic type of visual arts article, e.g. structure recommendations for articles about works of art.

The way I've seen this play out in most cases is that visual arts-related articles, even those on similar/identical/analogous topics, have extremely divergent styles, tones, structures, etc., such that it can feel almost impossible to try and develop a new article as there's no "model" to start from. And if we pointed to the "average" arts article as a model, we'd just be mimicking the thousands of artist bios that are nothing but a list of exhibitions.

In other cases, because MOS/Visual Arts and this WP are really the only places to go for info about editing/style/sourcing, I've seen editors without arts editing experience basically butcher visual arts-related articles because they don't understand the shades of reliability/independence when it comes to arts sources.

Writing about art for this project is not easy, especially when dealing with contemporary art, living artists, and high-profile/controversial artists. I just wonder if there's any way we can make it a bit easier and help improve the quality of content and experience of editors.

To that end, instead of just complaining without a solution, I think a helpful step in the right direction might be some sort of informative content for editors looking to use visual arts sources in their edits. I really think some community norms for visual arts articles sources would be extremely helpful for newcomers and veteran arts editors alike. Specifically, I'm imagining either an essay or some sort of other information page that breaks down different types of sources often used in arts coverage and their various usabilities, including: art periodicals/magazines, academic art journals, museum catalogues/catalogue essays, commercial gallery catalogues/catalogue essays, museum websites, commercial gallery websites, general news sources, etc., as well as the different formats of these materials and their various usability - reviews vs. essays vs. news articles/profiles vs. peer-reviewed articles vs. interviews vs. press releases. The nuance here is that editors must analyze sources individually, with an eye toward the underlying publisher's reliability. Crucially, I think there needs to be community consensus on the use of arts sources that are connected to a subject but not written by that subject; museum catalogues for exhibitions jump to mind here. I've run into a few editors - and several administrators - who have implied that museums are not independent sources because they have a financial interest in the art (i.e., museums sell tickets), which a) feels like a bad faith interpretation of museum ethics and b) would disqualify the primary engines of art scholarship from ever being cited.

Honestly I think there's a much broader conversation to have there on GLAM, arts scholarship, and Wikipedia in general, but we can't solve every problem.

Does anyone have any thoughts? Is this a pointless thought/idea? Is this a good idea, and if so, what is the appropriate process to begin brainstorming, drafting, and getting community feedback on such a thing?

Anyway! This is already a wall of text so I'll stop. Thanks for any feedback/ideas. 19h00s (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Slight addition: One of the more tricky aspects in the case of sourcing is the categorization of sources as primary vs. secondary. Like, I just don't think there are good community norms on how these categories are defined in arts coverage. To take a specific example, imagine you wanted to cite an academically oriented essay from a museum exhibition catalogue, in an article about a living artist who is the subject of the catalogue. Depending on the editor, you could interpret the source in wildly divergent ways. I, personally, would consider that a secondary source - an art historian or curator writing about the style or history of the artist, published by a museum and/or university press that is well-regarded for its scholarship. But others might call that a primary source, saying that the artist participated in the exhibition and might have had some hand in the making of the catalogue, so the essay shouldn't be cited in the artist's article. Obviously, as with all sources, we can't make hard-line blanket statements about usability or primary vs. secondary status. But I think clearer guidelines or norms that speak in general terms about these kinds of sources would be helpful to establish a baseline wherein editors don't try to malign sources because they originate in the museum world with a link to the subject (e.g., "Academically oriented catalogue essays written by art historians, curators, or critics and published by well-regarded nonprofit museums, arts institutions, and/or university presses can generally be considered independent, secondary sources, provided that the content is not simply an interview with the subject and that the information cited is not about the publisher.")

I don't know if I'm even being clear with what I'm looking for/having trouble with. I just think some community guidelines for arts sourcing - and eventually structure/style, beyond what's already in the MOS - would be really helpful for folks who want to expand visual arts coverage in good faith. 19h00s (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

++ There are some additional, truly basic norms that would be really helpful for arts coverage in general. When establishing information about contemporary artists, what is the "authoritative source"? For example, when establishing that an artist staged an exhibition and it was notable generally and in the context of their career, what is the most appropriate citation? Is a review of the exhibition in a reliable source sufficient? Would several, high-profile reviews be better to establish the show was actually notable? Can you just cite the catalogue, which proves the show happened (I don't do this, to be clear)? Or does the exhibition need to be detailed in an academic biography of the subject, of which there are fewer and fewer because arts scholarship is genuinely struggling? There are not enough committed editors woking on contemporary art subjects to have developed these kinds of norms (at least that's my impression), so the attitude varies in the extreme among even featured/good visual arts articles (I literally once found a featured article that, to establish that an exhibition happened, just cited the Google Books page for the catalogue of the show.)

Can anyone relate to this or does anyone have thoughts? And again, tell me to just walk away if this is a non-issue/not worth the time.

(Promise this is my last addition) 19h00s (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Realizing I put quite a lot in these walls of text, most of which can't really be addressed all at once. Here's where I'd love a reply:

To sum up the first action item I've been thinking about, what do folks in this WP think about creating a page for Visual Arts articles similar to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources? Listing and breaking down key visual arts periodicals, explaining the considerations when using museum and gallery sources, noting the rules on citing professional CVs (i.e., don't), etc.

I would love to get started building out some ideas, but I don't want to put effort in if more experienced editors don't see a use or if no one would participate in the feedback/review process. Could other folks see value in a dedicated visual arts sources information page, similar to what exists for albums? 19h00s (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The difficulty with creating a source guide for visual arts is that the visual arts aren't really written about in the same way as music. With music, there are a lot of publications that are constantly covering and reviewing new releases, and also occasionally covering old notable releases. You don't really have a lot of media like this for the visual arts, at least not anymore. There used to be a lot of magazines and journals that regularly published articles about art, both new and old, but there aren't nearly as many of those anymore. Creating a list of reliable magazines and journals could be useful, especially if it lists which ones are still in publication and includes links to online archives of older ones that aren't. Most new information published about new notable artworks are going to be published by the museums themselves. Like you said in one of your comments, these can be argued to be primary sources in some cases, and they aren't going to be completely independent of the subject if the publishing museum owns the artwork. From what I've found, catalogs from larger museums tend to be very reliable and well researched, and some of them publish their catalogs online, so creating a list of these could be helpful. Most new information published about old notable artworks is going to be published in books. And of course, there are also hundreds of years old books as well. You can't really write a source guide about books in the same way you can about regular publications because there are just way too many books to list every reliable book. Since you can't possibly list every single book, creating a list of reliable publishers might be a good idea too.

I do think starting some kind of source guideline for visual arts is a good idea is a good idea, and would be willing to help with it. GranCavallo (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The problem with creating a guideline for visual artworks is that artworks can become notable for wildly different reasons, and the structure of the article is going to have to reflect this. Because of that, a guideline for structure might be a good idea. For example, an article about an artist's first notable artwork might need to include a little bit of background context about how the artist first got started in their field before explaining the context of the artwork itself. An article about an artwork that is notable because it is considered an artist's greatest work will need to explain why it is considered that artist's greatest work in the article. An article about an artwork that is notable because numerous critics have interpreted it in different ways will need to summarize these different interpretations. An artwork that that is notable because of it's historic circumstances (such as it being lost or stolen and then recovered) will probably need to have more coverage of this history than just discussing it's composition. GranCavallo (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Definitely, I get all of what you're saying here -- I'm very glad someone else sees what I'm seeing in terms of needs, so thank you! It feels like every time I think of something that needs clarification, it opens up a whole Pandora's Box of new considerations. The difference between different artwork articles for example, as you pointed out - I hadn't even thought of the fact that different reasons for notability would necessitate wildly different article structures even when the topics are analogous (i.e., both articles are about specific works of art).

I do think it might still be useful to name a few specific periodical sources in visual arts, even if just to give a lay of the land. I think folks without arts editing experience or without a deep background in contemporary/visual arts might not know that, for example, you shouldn't use the magazine frieze to source most kinds of information related to the Frieze Art Fair, or even that the Big Three art publications in the U.S. are all now owned by the same company (Art in America, ARTnews, and Artforum all being under Penske's roof now). Some general pointers and descriptions of the landscape would be useful to get the message across that a) none of these periodicals exist in a vacuum with a view from nowhere, they all have histories/biases, and b) each source needs to be analyzed in the context of its use, its publisher, its content, etc.

I also would gently push back on the idea that museums are or should be the ultimate arbiters of notability. For historical art (which at this point I think would include early Modernism), you're definitely right, there just aren't non-academic sources writing about that art. But there is still definitely a contemporary art press corps, so to speak; even though visual arts media is nowhere as extensive as it once was, I think there's still enough of an infrastructure left that we have an obligation to incorporate the views and coverage of these publications into the notability equation. It's obviously very complicated and changes over time - a work that's dismissed in 2025 could be the work that defines this decade in the eyes of a future curator/critic in the year 2100 - but I do think we should still at least try to look to reviews and critical opinions in periodicals until there's more academic analysis that responds to or even incorporates that first round of critical feedback.

All that said, I think a great start would be what you outlined above: a general sourcing guideline that explains different types of arts sources, lists examples of reliable publishers/museums, and breaks down the nuances of primary vs. secondary and independent vs. non-independent sources in the museum/gallery worlds. I already started gathering some details in my Sandbox on perennial periodical sources I've consistently used in past edits. But I really have no idea what the process is for drafting and building out something like this - obviously collaboration is key, so I'm grateful someone else is interested in helping flesh out these ideas :) If you have any insights as to what kind of process we'd need to follow, that would be awesome too! 19h00s (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Flagging for anyone interested in this discussion (incl. @GranCavallo): I queried the editors over at WikiProject Albums to get a sense of the processes they followed in developing the WP:Albums/Sources guidelines page, got some great info from long-time participants in that project. I'm going to be mostly MIA for the next week or so, but I'll be thinking on the advice and examples they shared over there. In the meantime, anyone is welcome to jump into my Sandbox to start helping build out a structure/ideas for the process for development of a Visual Arts sourcing guidelines page. Or feel free to just copy what I've got so far and start a formal draft. Thanks all! 19h00s (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)