Talk:Francis Bacon (artist)

Cleanup

3rd-4th graphs could use some edits. "Bon vivant" and "bleak" repeat. One can be existential AND be charismatic, well-read, and articulate. Worldlelvr (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Infobox reassessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have to admit that I am a bit puzzled reading through the previous RfC regarding the use of an infobox on this page—I was not aware that infoboxes were considered controversial.

However, given 3 years have passed since that consensus was formed, I would like to see if there was still a consensus against the inclusion of an infobox among the editors of this article. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer. I believe an infobox would serve this article better than the lack thereof:

1. Infoboxes are to an article's lead section as a lead section is to an article—an even more summarized, at-a-glance list of key facts about a person. This article's lead section is long, and thus an infobox would provide an outsized benefit to the reader compared to articles with shorter leads.
2. The |nationality= field has been deprecated per MOS:INFOBOXNTLY, and thus, any potential controversy about Bacon's nationality should not be a factor in the addition of an infobox.
3. The debate over Bacon's particular style and movement, too, seem to have settled down—the lead currently describes him solely as a "figurative painter". If additional nuance is desired in the infobox, it can be added via a footnote.

Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support adding an infobox to the article. I'm looking over other articles for artists throughout history, and it seems quite unusual to not have an infobox. Many of the arguments in the previous RfC, in my opinion, don't feel like great arguments in opposition of an infobox as they were two and a half years ago; and they're much less applicable now.

Namely:

• An infobox shrinks the image too much does not feel like a strong argument against the infobox as a whole; a different picture can simply be chosen, or the image reformatted.
• Duplication of information many infoboxes duplicate information in an article lede, such as birth date and name; this is intentional, and I've not seen any issue taken with infoboxes in general.
• but Bacon is singularly unsuited to categorisation is the argument that opposed the addition of the infobox that has confused me the most. I don't see why Bacon specifically is uniquely unsuitable to be categorized; no sources to my knowledge bring this up, and as per nom there is consensus on his style, so this is a non-issue. Though I am also confused as to why this is an argument against the infobox as a whole. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 01:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support - I've always found the anti-infobox position strange. It's useful information at a glace. Opposition to it is often very elitist feeling... "we have the information in prose, they should just read the article!" Let's have some respect for people's time and give them some quick reference facts in an organized manner at a glance. Fieari (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - What will be the content of the infobox? Senorangel (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  Probably {{Infobox artist}}, if I had to assume. It's the same one used in the reverted diff from the previous RfC, as well as what is used on most artists' pages. I suppose {{Infobox person}} could also be used, but that includes no specific parameters for things such as notable works or art style, so preferably the former. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 04:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Where infoboxes have been contentious in the past have seemed to really be about disputes of particular fields, in this case the nationality (not reccommended anyway) and style. We can just omit them if there's no easy option. Infoboxes provide useful structured information at-a-glance that is structured compared to prose. SWinxy (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The proposed box [1] is inoffensively short, with no claims as to genre or major works. Nationality may be an issue, but the box says the same thing as the lead. Like that Dublin is mentioned; this might quell nationality grumbles. Can live with this. Ceoil (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-RfC

I missed this, being away for the 3 days when most comments came. I would have objected, but if Ceoil is ok with it.... But I forecast endless maintenance & disputes over the content, & we know that Ithinkiplaygames, User:SmittenGalaxy, User:SWinxy, and User:Fieari won't hang around to help out. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Any changes to the infobox should be proposed here then, on the talk page, if you predict all changes to be contentious. Could his education at Dean Close School be added? What about his signature? SWinxy (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Isn't it misleading to include Dean Close in the infobox? He was there for only two years (1924–1926). He was self-educated. Khiikiat (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps it is. SWinxy (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe we have his signature, & he didn't usually sign his paintings. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Johnbod, I have the same worries, but it does seem like Khiikiat gets what was agreed...a short as possible box, that mentions Dublin but not nationality, doesn't have major works (dicey given the long career/lost-destroyed works), or decorative stuff like a sig. For the record, my mind was changed post the James Joyce debate, where even through the shouting and noise by the usual suspects and their socks, a number of people I respect made good arguments for an abbreviated box and I hold them to their word. While we are on emotive stuff, I strongly disagree with the current dab, ie (artist), he was a painter only. The drawings were dabbles/sketches only, never intended to be seen, and IMO weak. He was no furniture maker of note. At the same time, life is short and I really don't give af either. Ceoil (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Invalid non-free use rationale?

File:Francis-Bacon-with-glass (cropped).jpg is in Commons as a public domain photograph. There is no particular reason use File:Francis Bacon by John Dekin.jpg in this article. --Geohakkeri (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, have switched, love the pic; he looks suitably inebriated :) Ceoil (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)