Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Archive 5

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.

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

I have replaced these links with those to extensive museum collections. Other thoughts are welcome. JNW (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Some trims were certainly in order on grounds that external links within the body of the article, and multiple links to the same website, are discouraged by WP:EL guidelines. Should a single link to this website remain in the External links section? Possibly; it could be argued that the site doesn't contain objectionable amounts of advertising (the marketplace tab is pretty discreet), and might be a worthwhile resource for researchers, curators & collectors. But they do deal in prints, which may be a dealbreaker for the reason you've stated. I'd be inclined to retain one link in EL, but would like to hear what others think. Ewulp (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Although it's not obvious, there remains one 'hidden' link, under Brandeis, which then offers a link to the Daumier Register. I do appreciate Ewulp's recognition of shades of gray in this matter--obviously the Register has much to offer, just not fifteen links' worth. But I'm okay if others see this as a single link worth restoring. JNW (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be at least one link - the site is exemplary & to my mind essentially non-commercial. I think their self-description as collectors with some surplus items to sell is probably essentially correct, & the amount of work that has gone into the site out of all proportion to any revenue I can imagine. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. After I 'cleaned up' the many links, someone went in and relinked again several times; I left one, which ought to be enough. The problem here is that a series of anonymous ip's keep creating numerous links not just in the external link section, but throughout the article, which is not only overkill, but gives the impression that someone is trying to sell something. JNW (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, these links are not being done properly - if it were links to specific works discussed in the article etc, that might be different. Johnbod (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Frankly I don't understand what we should do if anything, concerning images before the March 23, date. Modernist (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Plus the relevant judge of what is and is not "acceptable" seems effectively to be the notoriously unreliable Betacommandbot - this is perhaps the main issue here? Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to have a voice, and a means to protect images and editors, in relation to Betacommands interpretations, which often leave room for disagreement, to say the least. Modernist (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to write fair use statements that address all these points. That should suffice until the rules change again. ;) --sparkit^TALK 18:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning this just to keep an eye out: two competing commercial galleries [1] and [2] have for months persisted in creating multiple links to California impressionists they represent, sometimes deleting each other's contributions (!) as part of the rivalry. Etacar11 happened upon them months ago; I just discovered their work today. Thanks, JNW (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anything useful come out of this, or is there any reason why they shouldn't both be indef blocked? Tyrenius (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty useless to me. Etacar11 and JNW have done a heads up job. Modernist (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be they don't think anyone has noticed, & a block would just make them harder to spot next time. Well done both! Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Under one guise or another, they are apt to try again in a few months. It's not unexpected; the last half year has been a relatively slow time in the business, and it is not easy to pass up a little free promotion. The residual matter is that some of the artists' bios are duplicates of those on one of the gallery's sites--it's as if the gallery (or an interested party) created the articles using their own text, took credit by adding 'courtesy of...', introduced three or four links to their site, and assumed ownership. The question is, do we now tag each such article with a copyright vio? JNW (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That can be a useful way of losing Spam. "Courtesy of" is no good. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a good idea to let the Spam project deal with them: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam - Modernist (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've posted this discussion there. Thanks for the tip. JNW (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

JNW, thank you for the heads up and welcome news. I can only help as backup if someone else wants to take the lead getting this to GA (possibly a thankless and doomed task given the amount of vandalism the article gets). But I will add the Reuters ref to the Lisa del Giocondo article. A while ago I moved speculation down from the top of the Mona article after the Lisa article was written (maybe it is okay for now but could be moved out to a separate article on speculation someday in the future, I don't know). Again thanks a million. -Susanlesch (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Another contributor added the recent news, which attracted the attention of others, including myself. My goal was just to do a little clean-up and strengthen the references. Overall the article looks pretty good, but if someone wants to work it up for GA or FA, I'd be willing to help, as well. Cheers, JNW (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to the interest here and to the fact it is easier to manage a biography, the Lisa del Giocondo article has been nominated for and passed GA. Your votes are welcome at featured article candidate where it is now. -Susanlesch (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

But where can one pick up the magic forms of words that are the only ones Betacommandbot recognises? Is there a centralized place, or does one have to scavenge examples? Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:FUR is getting complicated, but thanks for the heads up. If there are images that come across that need work lets make it known. I did an image today at Diego Riviera, that Betacommandbot was gonna zap. - Modernist (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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

• Basic info on painting - title, artist etc.
  • Copyright holder (known, presumed or not known)
  • Where image was obtained from and where (URL or details if book scan)

• Copyright template. For a painting this will be {{Non-free 2D art}}

• A separate fair use rationale for each article the image appears in. User the heading ==Fair use rationale== or ==Fair use rationale in [[name of the article]]==. Basic points in each rationale:
  • Used in [[name of the article]]
  • significance, e.g. "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
  • Any other useful info, e.g. famous image for the artist; a painting specifically referenced in the text; an important image to show a particular stage of the artist's work etc.
  • low resolution image
  • not considered to harm the commercial interests of the copyright holder
  • considered to be fair use
  • no known free equivalent available

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

Some useful links:

• Wikipedia:Use rationale examples
• Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Policy_2
• User:Tyrenius/Image_FU#Fair_use_rationale_for_artwork (I tweak as needed)
• User:Tyrenius#Images (links I find useful)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems you are right and it is the beginning of the next whole year, i.e. 1 January 2009.[3][4] Tyrenius (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We obviously have the choice of the artist box, or a painting box, or no box at all. Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style is the place to get this project's particular view across. Writing mostly about PD art, I think they waste valuable space needed for pictures. Also they tend to be filled out (or used to be) by editors with no specific expertise & very often inaccurate - especially as to "movement" "influence" etc. We should at the least strongly resist any move to make them obligatory or semi-obligatory in visual arts articles. I have no problem at all with them for films, sportspeople, taxons etc., where they are very useful. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Johnbod (talk) for the most part, although concerning Picasso, the lead seems empty without the box, I'll try to carefully look at the new edits there. Modernist (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I'm pretty sure this came up at either FAC or FAR recently, and either Raul or Sandy confirmed there was no requirement to have an infobox in an FA. Does anyone have the reference? There is also the issue of which infobox - painting or bio. We should certainly be free to choose. Someone adding one out of the blue can always be reverted. In fact there seems less of this than a year ago. Johnbod (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note the most recent FA on a painter - Robert Peake the Elder - promoted a few days ago, has no infobox, & the question was not even raised at FAC. Johnbod (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I do think that if there is an infobox in a biog it should be the artist one, and the painting infobox should be for an article on a painting. For reasons I've already stated, I think infoboxes serve a valuable purpose, and it is preferable to use them. Tyrenius (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that infoboxes on artists like Picasso, Matisse, Miro, Modigliani, Titian, Da Vinci, Botticelli, Monet, and other well known artists work reasonably well. The infoboxes on somewhat lesser known artists, and contemporary and new artists seems forced, and are usually redundant, and somewhat useless. I will use them, however I think they should remain as optional items. I agree that it is better to take responsibility for it, so as to make them as accurate as possible. I don't like the idea of deleting working infoboxes like the infobox on Picasso was, unless there are very serious reasons why they shouldn't simply be corrected. Modernist (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

People feel, perhaps wrongly, you have to use a pic of the artist in an artist box. Many artists don't have good pictures of them, and using a painting would be much better, with the poor image lower down. Perhaps fortunately, many of the artists I do have no images of them surviving. Most heavily bearded 19th century artists would be much better off with a good painting at the top - they all look the same anyway. Other encyclopedias tend to follow this pattern in my experience. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Another example - DYK just now - George Cooke (painter) - best practice? I think not! Johnbod (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over the last two months I've been having an on again, off again disagreement about whether Robert Walter Weir should or shouldn't be included as a Hudson River School artist (on the talk pages of both articles). I've included him and the argument against him began primarily because he was not included in a relatively recent exhibition at the Metropolitan, and therefore he wasn't important enough to mention. Yesterday one of those arguing vehemently for his deletion uncovered a vast trove of references attesting to Weir's being an original first generation Hudson River School painter, having been included in books, articles, and exhibitions in the past - but few lately. Which made my case but which brings up the problem - El Greco disappeared for centuries, Van Gogh was obscure in his own time, as were Cezanne, and many others; the documentation of so many artists is really awful and arbitrary and academic and anathema to art. Perhaps we should rethink the standards. If an artist falls into obscurity like some of these old Italian historical painters have, perhaps we can create a new standard or some new designations of notability. Modernist (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

El Greco was never so obscure that general histories of painting did not have a few words of abuse for him - see Posthumous fame of El Greco. He would always have been easily notable. The problem is well illustrated by Frigerio - not in the Getty List (120,000 artists!) which I presume means not in Thieme-Becker or Benezit, which of these does he meet (from WP:BIO):

• The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. Certainly not
• The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.Certainly not
• The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. No sign yet
• The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries His best chance, and notable palace frescos would of course do, but evidence slim so far

He was apparently just a working dude around his home town; as we know Italian churches and palaces are full of very uninspired painting by his ilk. If the thesis industry hasn't caught him yet there is probably a good reason. I'm very open to both adding him to his master, which should always be done (and has been here) and to a list. But I think there are too many 1-line stubs, mostly for British and Italian baroque-onwards which never get expanded. Meanwhile many very important early northern artists have no entry. Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm maybe we should make a movie, it did wonders for Camille Claudel and Artemisia Gentileschi. :) The problem is as you say one line stubs and so many worthy important artists with nothing as of yet. Modernist (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Lucas Cranach the Elder
• Hans Holbein the Younger
• Filippino Lippi
• Masolino da Panicale
• Salomon van Ruysdael - stub
• Bartholomeus Spranger
• Pieter Bruegel the Elder
• Adriaen Brouwer
• Gentile Bellini
• Nicolas Poussin
• J. M. W. Turner

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

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

Suggest merging Category:Statues to Category:Sculptures

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

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

• November-December 1978 issue of American Art & Antiques:
  • American Magazine, Newspaper, and Book Posters of the 1890s
  • Posters of the Nineties
  • Art Collection Security
  • Corporate Collections of Antiques
  • Atelier 17
  • Daguerreotypes
  • The Paintings of William Robinson Leigh
• January 1999 issue of The Magazine - Antiques
  • Namikawa Yasusuki
  • Eastman Johnson, Edmund C. Tarbell, George Caleb Bingham
  • Dagobert Peche
  • Chinese cloisonné

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

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

Donatello and a pal, in the Florence Baptistry. FYI

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

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

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dong Wen Jie
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Shi-min
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qu Leilei
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qu Qianmei
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shi Xinning
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wang Kang Le
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wang Shiyan
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wang Yi Guang
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wu Guanzhong
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xia Xiao Wan
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yan Pei-Ming
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhang Enli
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhang Shuqi
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhaoming Wu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yep; notability looks no problem. There are plenty of book references.

But I advise that, just to be on the safe side, you be cautious about conflict of interest re this topic [5]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You are going to have to spell that out for me. I studied with DeCreeft for close to four years at the Art Students League in the early to mid 1960s, and I have a lot of respect for him as an artist and as a person....but, since I have nothing gain from an article about him, just where is the COI? Anyhow, this is Wikipedia and anyone who thinks the article lacks balance is free to add what is necessary for creating balance. If there is a problem with lack of balance in an article that is best corrected by having multiple editors with differing points of view, and that is the reason I put the information about the article on the WikiProject Visual Arts talk page. If you, or anyone, sees something that seems POI, please correct it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have explained more clearly. You haven't done anything wrong, and emphatically no insult is intended. A present or past close professional connection with the subject of the article is, simply, a standard area for caution, and you need to be aware of the options and suggested editing practices in WP:COI. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not feel insulted. Certainly, if there is anything in this (or any other) article that is not neutral, it should be corrected. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good start. There is more here [6]. I studied with Mr. De Creeft for one month, late in his life. JNW (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Does the Judgement of Paris count?--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Or Leda and the Swan? Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly would regard the Judgement of Paris as part of the story of the War and had looked to see whether the Rubens version had an article. His choosing Aphrodite was a prelude to the rape/abduction/elopement of Helen and determined what sides the three godesses were on. I'm not sure whether going back to the conception of Helen and sibs is too early. But that's just my opinion and a number of narrations of the war do start then or earlier. ANyway thanks for thinking about this.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The Laocoön, c.1610-1614, a painting by El Greco is a great picture from the The National Gallery of Art Modernist (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Labelling done.[7] Ty 23:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this [8] on the Wikipedia main page today. I am not familiar with the articles on the history of painting, but it might be interesting to include this information someplace. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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

The note below really should be flipped around. This Freshacconci person removed all references and all comments I tried added within one or two minutes several dozen times. My comments were based on the most basic sources - Gardiners Art Through the Ages and the basic iconic texts of Western Art History - and presented that way along with an acceptable reference to the idea that other cultures have made non-objective art (though not as a referential achievement). I am a trained and professional art historian and I have been trying to present a common and balanced view that did not include automatically reverting entire articles to their previous state without acknowledging alternative points of view. I have had a specific issue with Freshacconi's knee-jerk automatic reverting actions which included erasing an entire, basic bibliography to replace it with a single title of no standing or reputation. The article indeed needs expansion, but I will only bother to speak out against this project if actions such as Freshacconi's are anything other than very rare. Indeed, in the end, the editor absolutely stood by my posts which brought in the most common considerations of the terms as well as including alternative views which I believe are naive, yet even worked them in for the sake of the integrity of the project. It's sad and ironic to see a note from Freshacconi talking about a "friendly welcome" since her welcome could hardly have been ruder, more ego-driven, competitive and demeaning to Wikipedia as a whole. Hurleydog3 (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC) dankany Hurleydog3 (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I prefer the former version. It's a much cleaner look, and I prefer having the captions directly below each image. The black bars in the new version seem heavy and unattractive. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the first version for its quiet unobtrusive presence; and the second version for it's matter of fact succinctness; and I'm leaning towards a larger first one...The second version is at 310px, try the first version at 150,152,152,155px, instead of 120,122,122,125px...That's my first choice. Modernist (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

First version, for specific captions and removal of black borders. JNW (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kafka Liz: the black borders are distracting (and blend into the works themselves). freshacconcispeaktome 13:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I just realized we are allowed to alter fair use images, so I am going to crop the random whitespace from the images after I revert to the old format.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this: [9]? Artincontext has been adding the link to a number of article. Obviously, there's a WP:COI issue here, plus an iffy username. Is this spam? Does anyone know about this organization. They appear to be a non-profit, but they provide links to commercial galleries. I'm not sure if this is a grey area or not, spam-wise. freshacconcispeaktome 16:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell if the galleries that are included pay artincontext.org? If they are equitable giving information that is one thing, but if they only include galleries that pay support their non-profit endeavor, that is another.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically it's spam. Modernist (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Modernist here. I don't see what inclusion of this link would add to articles. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have reverted these several times. I think he (or someone) does a pass every few months. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

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

I prefer the diff on the left, Mr. A leaves out too much valuable information. Modernist (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Though I'm not usually conversant in the ways of categories, it seems that at least some of the reverted cats are relevant. JNW (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Chiming in for more categories, rather than fewer. Many of the eliminated categories should be kept. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Night Watch (painting)
• Raft of the Medusa
• The Adoration of the Shepherds (El Greco)
• The Wilton Diptych
• Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp
• The Temptation of St. Anthony
• The Last Judgment (Angelico) (and by many others)
• The Entombment of Christ (Caravaggio)
• Enigma of the Hour

but I am ok with:

• The Jewish Bride
• The Conspiracy of Claudius Civilis
• The Garden of Earthly Delights

and not sure about:

• The Seven Deadly Sins and the Four Last Things (tricky!)
• The Crucifixion of St Julia
• The Feast in the House of Levi (but The Wedding at Cana seems not right)
• The Madonna of Port Lligat, since most earlier Madonnas are not given a the.
• The Hiroshima Panels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bridges are usually regarded as architecture, however sculptural. It is very nice. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That was my initial decision on the article's talk page where I removed the template. However, after seeing the new main image, I was wondering if there are exceptions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

An editor has added this to several articles: [10], I removed them pending consensus. I'd appreciate any thoughts. Modernist (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• In MHO they mix apples, pears, walnuts, oranges and hotdogs together...not as subtle as they might be. Modernist (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think that this template is either necessary or terribly helpful. The relation between the subjects just isn't close enough to warrant a template. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Whilst most of the ones I've seen seem appropriate for their pages - it does open up more general questions about user made content. If the user works as an artist or photographer and licenses the images under their real name (and with links to their website as with these), how do we police the borderline between having a useful free image and giving the maker free advertising? Is there any guideline around about that? Its giving me horrible visions of 'helpful' artists uploading their local scenes to illustrate town/village pages etc... -Hunting dog (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Overall, I don't particularly care for them. Their inclusion feels like self-advertising to me, and might even be considered original research. I particularly don't approve of their inclusion on the pages of individual visual artists, whose pages are, I believe, better illustrated by their own work. I also think they don't belong in articles whose subject is already illustrated by a photograph. Hunting dog's question about guidelines bears further investigation. How do others feel? Kafka Liz (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A while ago an artist uploaded his drawings of Picasso and others and added them, it was tacky and they were deleted. I don't mind these "artist cards" but I don't think they should be lead images...Hunting dog's point about advertising and not encouraging more of the same is a good one. I'm removing those from the lead infobox that I find, that have been replacements for either artist works - like David Hockney or photographs like the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Modernist (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think his additions for Harold Ross and Dorothy Parker are fine additions. They are high quality and a good representation of the subject. For articles that have no image of the subject, they are they only illustration to the article. I definitely do not think they fall into the realm of original research, since his art, on these 2 people, is based on photographs. I think it would be a narrow view to put a stop to adding these images. K72ndst (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Based on photographs" adds a new layer to the issue. User:Postdlf raises the point here that there may be copyright issues surrounding the drawings because they are based on copyrighted photographs. Basically, if we can't use the actual photograph, we can't use a drawing of it either. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In the case of specific visual artists like Francis Bacon, David Hockney, R. Crumb, Andy Warhol, Chuck Close etc. it's better to let their own work speak for itself...If there is a photo as the lead photo of Claude Monet it's usually historically interesting and should be left in place...I can see the cards as addendum illustations...I don't object per se to the use of the illustrations provided they are tagged correctly and placed in the articles in which they are useful and apropos without replacing better or more accurate information.. Modernist (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's more or less how I stand on the issue, just to be clear. I think the copyright issue perhaps ought to be looked into, though. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• I am pretty strongly against their use in almost any context. They all have his name, so raise COI & self-advertising issues as well as the copyright ones. I haven't seen any that improve on a photo of the artist or other subject or one of his works. Furthermore, looking at the Harold Ross one as an example, there is no permission given that I can see, so he is presumably retaining all copyright, which means they should not actually be used here without a specific permission, as fair use rationales are unlikely to apply. Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have read and acknowledge all the above comments. The "Art Cards" were created by me and posted in good faith and never intended to cause controversy. They were intended as "whimiscal portraits" which might add a different more abstract element to the subject in addition to words and photos. Of course I respect the policies and views of Wikipedia and it contributors and suggest the images be removed if anyone feels uncomfortable. Many thanks.Simonfieldhouse (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A strict interpretation of WP:OR would allow few user-created images at all. (All maps, graphs, drawings, &c. would be out.) However, the WP:OI section implies a more relaxed standard for images placing the burden of proof on the party challenging the veracity of the image. Technically, artistic drawings are no different that photographs in that both use subjective means (artistic licence vs. camera settings &/or photo editing software) to interpret information and translate it into pixels to appear on a screen. — AjaxSmack 03:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again I removed an unauthorized illustration from Metropolitan Museum of Art, please respect other editors objections to your illustrations!Modernist (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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

...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 11:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This user - User talk:Mocus22 has begun adding VAGA copyright tags to a multiplicity of images - at Grant Wood, Jasper Johns, Ben Shahn, Robert Rauschenberg and others, I don't know if this is vaga sanctioned or not...the external link seems ok or is it...User:Mocus22 says that he represents VAGA...which is a well known organization that represents artist copyrights on images. Modernist (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• My understanding is that the copyright information should be listed on the image page only (unless it is otherwise significant). Wikipedia:Copyrights#Fair_use_materials_and_special_requirements and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags seem to back this up. I feel that the VAGA link he has added to the external links section of these pages should be removed as well - "To clear rights to reproduce works by Shahn" is basically equivalent to including a link to Amazon that says "To buy this album". The VAGA link should probably be on the image page. Anyone else have some thoughts on this? Wickethewok (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• NOTE: This editor (Mocus22) has edited image pages in the past, such as here: Image:Jasper Johns's 'Map', 1961.jpg, which I think is the correct thing to do. Wickethewok (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the VAGA notices from the images in articles, and I agree the tags should appear on the image pages if anywhere. I left the external links for now because I'm not sure how VAGA should proceed. Maybe they should be removed until an agreement is reached. Modernist (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is right, and the external link should also be on the image file. Unfortunately the person who uploaded the Grant Wood self-portrait asserted copyright, which no doubt he does not have, and does not give his source. It might be better to do this one again. Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to list new articles, but I tagged this one with your project. APK ^{yada yada} 06:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Thorsten1 has recently removed the image of Talcott Parsons from his article, with the argument:

"remove image - no image at all is still better than this. The colors are hurting people's eyes and it's not even very similar."

I think this is unacceptable.

Could somebody take a look at this, and respond at Talk:Talcott Parsons. Thank you.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A UK-based editor may want to look at this article. I've tagged for it advertising and COI although I don't doubt that the gallery itself is notable. However, it will require a complete rewrite and references. freshacconcispeaktome 13:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that this article has the WikiProject Visual arts template. As the article is now, it is mostly a promotion for one artist, with two others thrown in. None of them have their own articles, and they may not be notable. The subject itself is notable. The links are commercial. 96.224.110.219

There is apparently a group called "Urban Art". Please see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_art How can we differenciate the style or movement of Urban Art from this group? I live on Planet Art (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Move (tab at top of the page) "Urban art" to "Urban Art (group)" should be capital "A" if it's the title of the group. That will create a redirect page called "Urban art". Just add info about Urban art to that page and delete the redirect. At the top of the "Urban art" page put:

:''For the German art group, see [[Urban Art (group)]]''

If you have problems getting onto the redirect page, because when you search for it you end up at "Urban Art (group)", you will see near the top of the article something saying it has been redirected from "Urban art". Click on that link to edit the redirect page. Ty 00:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I am going to attempt this...as a newbie I welcome someone with experience to jump in and help. I live on Planet Art (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok folks, I have got this going. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_art

Please feel free to jump in and help :) I live on Planet Art (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)