Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

How can the artwork infobox be improved?

I was recalling something I posted here back in 2012, specifically some complaints that people had with the infobox, e.g. the image size being too small. I've recently finished a substantial amount of cleanup on the artwork infobox and its transclusions in the wild to get its dimensional parameters cleaned up, and I'm planning to improve that functionality a little bit more once I teach myself some Lua (in particular, the ability for imperial units to be displayed as the primary unit for the article if desired).

Since I'm planning to do a bunch of work on the template anyway, I figured I'd ask: are there particular complaints with the template that I can fix? For example, the discussion from 2012 suggested that the infoboxes don't make the artwork images big enough by default; should I raise the default size? I'd like to identify as many potential improvements as possible … and if it encourages infobox use, that would be a bonus, because I think infobox use synergizes nicely with GLAM partnerships and potentially Wikidata. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 01:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Putting the image above and outside the infobox is often the best solution, short of having no infobox at all. I don't see how infoxes synergise with GLAM partnerships, for which templates and categories are best, & metadata from owning musums will normally be preferable to that from Wikipedia for Skynet purposes. The other problems are that many of the fields are often filled out inappropriately, and the fields are not aligned with standard vocabularies for the cultural sector. Johnbod (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• I can add an option to the template to display the image externally to the infobox. They'd still be adjacent, but it might add some layout flexibility by allowing them to float separately. There might be other layout options to add that we can explore. Regardless, not using infoboxes purely for layout reasons feels like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
• The infobox format encourages structured data, which is easier to import/export, whether for populating Wikidata entries, recalling data from Wikidata, or importing from a GLAM database. It's also easier to search for existing problems: I'd like to add, for example, a snippet of code that will let me find articles that are displaying fractional inches in decimal notation, since that represents false precision (3⁄4 is not as precise as 0.75). That sort of specialized search is impossible on articles not using the infobox.
  I had the idea in 2012 of adding a mode to the infobox for the template to emulate a simple captioned image (rather than appear as an infobox); I'd rather a mode like that be used over no infobox even if there was essentially no visual change in the affected articles.
• If "many of the fields are often filled out inappropriately", which ones are these? It's likely possible to change the design of the template to discourage using fields inappropriately, and I'm willing to take on the grunt work of fixing existing problems. That's exactly what I did in cleaning up the dimensional syntax, so I ought to be able to repeat that for other parameters. For example, I changed unitless parameters like height (deprecated) to be more specific, like height_metric or height_imperial. Again, not using infoboxes because they're sometimes used badly feels like a bad justification.
• As with fields being filled out inappropriately, which ones ought to be aligned to "standard vocabularies", and how so? This seems like a trivial problem to fix. While I manually corrected dimensional syntax so as to catch errors, simply changing the name of a parameter can be done by bot.

My goal right now is to make the infobox as effective as possible and minimize its downsides. It's frustrating to see a good (but flawed) tool being neglected rather than improved. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 14:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frederick Ruple. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 05/03

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Laura Henschel-Rosenfeld. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Egorov Alexandre

Dear artistic people: Here's an unusual old abandoned Afc submission which was declined for lack of inline citations. The sources are not on line, so I can't tell if they are appropriate of not. Is this a notable designer, and should the article be kept and improved rather than being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Charles Smith (1749-1824)

I'm in the process of developing Charles Smith (artist) but I'm not an arts specialist. If anyone knows of any suitable images then I'd be grateful to see some added to the thing. I'd also be grateful if someone could add any additional relevant categories. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge Azar

Hi, I'm concerned that the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge Azar has been co-opted by WP:SPA users, and would appreciate more eyes on this from experienced editors in the visual arts. Thanks, JNW (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Wenceslao Garcia

Hello visual arts experts. This article was just added to the encyclopedia, but it appears to have some problems. It seems very promotional to me and the images don't have proper attribution. Could someone from this project check it out? Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 19/03

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chloé (artwork). FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Paul Kane 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.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elio Carletti

I was checking a series of Italian painter stubs and I just can't seem to make anything out of this one, so I felt I had to send it to the bin: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elio Carletti. Jane (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 27/03

Is this painter notable? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Horace Fisher (artist). FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ashfaq Ishaq

Dear arts experts: Here's an old submission about a person who organizes arts events. Is this a notable topic, and should the article be kept and improved, or deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A Contract with God Featured Article Candidate

I've put the article for Will Eisner's 1978 graphic novel A Contract with God up as a Featured Article Candidate. Everyone is encouraged to participate in the review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Contract with God/archive1. Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Gate to the Northwest Passage

I have requested a peer review for the article Gate to the Northwest Passage, about a sculpture in Vancouver, British Columbia. I seek feedback about the article in general, before nominating it for Good article status, and about three specific pieces of content currently being debated. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Use of external links to images on web pages

In the lists of works by Frank Weston Benson there are links to web pages to see an image of the works. See for instance List of wildlife works of art by Frank Weston Benson. I can see that this is a nice feature for the reader. It also, though, goes against my understanding of WP:External links. There is also an issue at hand in that this page is quite large, partly because of the links (Talk:List of works by Frank Weston Benson#Split?).

What are your thoughts about use of external links to web pages within the body of lists?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The list's Smithsonian links are functioning as references, so I'd recommend converting them into footnotes in a single column at the end of the row. As for the way they're displayed now, I don't think the IAP number is particularly helpful, though a full citation would be. If used similarly (as references), I'd convert the "view" links into refs in the aforementioned ref column. External links shouldn't be used out of laziness when the image is quite accessible in the public domain—they should be uploaded to Commons. czar ♔ 19:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mario Naves

Dear editors: This old abandoned Afc submission, which will soon be deleted as a stale draft, appears to have some references, although they aren't linked on line. Is this a notable artist, and should the article be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Italians in artist categories with questionable text

Pino Daeni

The page Pino Daeni claims he is an "Italian impressionist" painter. This is a guy born well after 1900, known for his book covers, which he made in New Jersey, not Italy. Though a follower of Impressionism, I am pretty sure you can't call him an impressionist. Thoughts anyone? Jane (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed - nor of course is he a Post-Impressionist. Maybe say he "worked in a style reminiscent of Impressionism". Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! He is not the first 20th-century "Italian impressionist" I've come across, so I just wanted to check and be sure it's not some American thing I never heard of. Jane (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Here are some more 20th-century "impressionists": On the page for Michele Cascella it states "He is referred to as an Italian Impressionist, post-impressionist and neo-impressionist." The painters Italo Mus and Elio Carletti are "Italian impressionist painters". Vangjush Mio is an Albanian impressionist painter, etc. Jane (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

As above - Neo-impressionism (Seurat et al.) is also a particular thing, though I don't believe the term is used much in English these days. In fact this lot do seem closer to Impressionism, but some decades too late. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sergio Zanni

I guess people don't look at the pages for the modern Italians much? The sculptor Sergio Zanni might otherwise be suffering from having his sortkey start with a "Z". This is a guy who uses "backed clay" and has a quote about his use of "Kryptonite" to make (among other things), "front-less characters". It gave me a laugh, but seriously needs some wikilove, as I guess he is indeed active as a sculptor, according to artnet. Jane (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Matteo Zaccolini

The Theatine priest Matteo Zaccolini is supposedly someone who wrote an important work on perspective. If it's that important we should be able to link to it, no? He supposedly taught Poussin, but the evidence is a bit thin. Thoughts? Jane (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This one is fine according to multiple reliable sources; see for example The Sensuous in the Counter-Reformation Church pp. 255–256 here. Ewulp (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, he does seem legitimate to me now, but there must be someplace where we can copies of the illustrations mentioned in that text. It would help a lot to get some pics of his perspective work. Jane (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Giuseppe Zevola

This guy's claim to fame is teaching? Also, he lives on a yacht called Halloween. Maybe you can locate the painter in Giuseppe Zevola? Jane (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Spanish painter Pedro García Ferrer

This guy, Pedro García Ferrer practised the art of "laziness"?!? Jane (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There were only 6 edits in the history, Jane. It wasn't hard to find this old vandalism. Johnbod (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I am gathering lots of notes out of searches directly, so I'm not clicking on the articles as I go. Thanks for fixing this one. Jane (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 08/04

Draft:Dejima Prostitute with Fan. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Identifying painting and source

According to its file page, this painting purports to be a work of Jean-Jacques-François Le Barbier. I was hoping to move this to Commons, but I would like to verify the description first. The uploader did not identify the book that this painting was scanned from, and I can't find this painting anywhere online. Can anyone here help? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

His quite long bio in wp:fr doesn't mention him travelling further than Rome, though that might not stop him painting such a work. But it doesn't look like his style or quality. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hm that is quite an odd print. I think it may actually be by Jean Baptiste Vanmour (see here). I am surprised that would be uploaded without being linked anywhere - possibly it was linked to the Blue Mosque and then thrown off again. If you can find the original edit where the print was included you might get some more metadata. Jane (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI, it was inserted into an article in this edit (which doesn't provide any clues as to its origin). Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Oxford UP online reference - free access for a week in North America

to celebrate National Libraries Week - see here - a chance to download some Grove material etc for future use. 13-19 April. It seems the password may in fact work from anywhere (or Australia anyway). UK people can get Grove access via their local library anyway of course. -Johnbod (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Too bad it's just North America!! Jane (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Biljana Ciric

Dear art experts: This old Afc submission is about a curator. It appears to have some references, but I have no idea what makes a curator notable. Can someone from this project take a look at it? Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

FPC A Polish Nobleman

The members of this project might be interested in: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/A Polish Nobleman. – Editør (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC).

IEG proposals on Visual arts subjects

Some projects that may be of interest to folks on this list are currently proposed for Individual Engagement Grants (IEG). We would be very grateful for any input YOU can give to help us decide which projects to fund. One proposal that may be of particular interest to Visual arts followers is m:Grants:IEG/Masterworks of Art in Wikipedia. I already commented on the talk page, but more input is welcome! Please share any comments/questions/feedback you have directly on any IEG proposal's talk page by April 20 2014, before the committee begins its formal review. Yours truly, (an enthusiastic but sometimes confused Committee member who is busy trying to read all of the proposals and comment at least once), Jane (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC) PS. The whole list of proposals to review is here: m:Grants:IEG#ieg-join.

Hi all, I wanted to thank you for your thoughtful comments on m:Grants:IEG/Masterworks of Art in Wikipedia. I also spent some time on the talk page of that proposal, and as a committee member I just handed in my review (I nixed it). The basic idea locked into the proposal title could become "Wiki loves Artworks" and I would love to see that happen. Is there anyone here who would be interested in proposing something like that for the next round? My basic idea is a multi-lingual challenge for highlights of museum collections, and we could build the list as part of the proposal. I suggest starting with 10 (as yet not created in any other Wikipedia project) artwork titles from each of the museums on the list of most visited art museums in the world. Our budget could contain items for instructional videos on how to contribute and create an artwork article, or what fields to put in an artwork item on Wikidata, or maybe funding for international prizes for a contest on best article, or for best photo of an object, etc. What do you think? Jane (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

FPC The Milkmaid

The members of this project might be interested in: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Milkmaid. – Editør (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Art parks

Category:Art parks has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Boyce Cummings

Dear art experts: Is this a notable artist, and should this old AfC submission be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Reversions at Turner's The Slave Ship

Would-be blogger at work. I'm not entirely keen on the existing passage, drawn from Gardner's Art through the Ages (not checked to source), but this OR isn't an improvement. Johnbod (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

FPC Girl in a White Kimono

The members of this project might be interested in: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Girl in a White Kimono. – Editør (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Visual Arts At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Muse

It seems that Constantin Brâncuși made a number of bronze casts of his original Sleeping Muse, but I can't find a source that clearly states how many were made or where they are now. Some museums, such as the Met in New York and the Art Institute of Chicago claim to have one in their collections, but not on display. Usually, there is only one copy of a given work of art, so I'm not sure how to proceed here as far as location or current collection are concerned. Any help would be appreciated with this interesting problem. Sesamehoneytart 12:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's any help, it's not unusual for sculptors to make multiple versions in bronze. JNW (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine as is. A very lovely piece; I used to have a photo of it over my desk once upon a time. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Pieter Bruegel the Elder's The Blind Leading the Blind (1568) — Featured Article Candidate

I've put up the article for Pieter Bruegel the Elder's painting The Blind Leading the Blind (1568) as a Featured Article Candidate. Please participate in the review! Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Ukiyo-e Peer Review

I intend to make Ukiyo-e my next Featured Article nomination, and would greatly appreciate more feedback to ensure a smooth nomination. Please contribute to the review here. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom of Worship (painting)/archive1

Feel free to participate at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom of Worship (painting)/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have a few comments about this project

I haven't bought into this before except to make a suggestion a few ymonths ago as to additions to Level four. Some of my additions were taken up. Now I see that I made the suggestion in the wrong place and should have made them at Level 3.

OK! Those who have been operating this added my suggestions to Level 4, without anyone who is familiar with how it works having the brilliant brainwave that would take the suggestions to the right place.

My general impression is that nobody has actually got an overview of this, and that things are added to different sections as suggested, rather than anyone actually looking for gaps in the lists, or formulating what they ought to contain. Amandajm (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

NOTE

I added this under the mistaken impression that this was going specifically into a comment section pertaining to Level 3 article. It has ended up on a general talk page. I cannot even begin to understand how this works.

Everything below pertains to Level 3

Arts and culture (56 articles)

1. History of art
2. Aesthetics
3. Library
4. Museum
5. The arts

Artistic movements

1. Gothic art
2. Baroque
3. Romanticism
4. Modernism
5. Postmodernism
6. Popular culture

Why is this list so short? Where are: Ancient Greece and Rome, Early Christian art, Renaissance art, Romanesque art, Impressionism?

Architecture

In the light of the list above, Why is there a list of buildings here, instead of a list of styles?

What should be here is:

• Egyptian architecture
• Architecture of Mesopotamia
• Ancient Roman architecture
• Ancient Greek architecture
• Early Christian architecture
• Romanesque architecture
• Gothic architecture
• Renaissance architecture
• Baroque architecture
• Classical architecture
• Revival architecture
• Modern architecture
• Post-modern architecture
• Islamic architecture
• Hindu architecture
• Buddhist architecture
• Pre-Columbian architecture

Instead we have a list of a few notable buildings:

1. Architecture
   1. Angkor Wat
   2. Colosseum
   3. Great Pyramid of Giza
   4. Great Wall of China
   5. Machu Picchu
   6. Parthenon
   7. Stonehenge
   8. Taj Mahal

Amandajm (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 27/05

Draft:Aphrodite of Menophantos. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Fremont Rocket

There's a request about the Fremont Rocket at WT:MILHIST. As this appears to be a sculpture [1] Fremont Rocket, Fremont, Seattle, Washington. It is not a real rocket, but a Fairchild C-119 tail boom modified to resemble a missile. It was rescued from a defunct downtown Seattle surplus store, and is now a symbol of the Fremont neighborhood. -- then I assume this should be categorized as a sculpture? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles related to LGBT art and artists may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Help needed

Does anyone know anything about those two paintings? We are looking for a source so we can safely keep the images on Commons. Any additional information is also very welcome! Thanks for your time! --Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 03:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 21:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 08/06

Draft:Dominik Kottulla. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Grove Dictionary/Oxford Art Online

Has everybody seen the offer of free subs? Still 20 left. People in the UK can get these through their local library. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Add DAAO record field to infobox

We'd like to provide links to high quality biographies of Australian artists via the Design and Art Australia Online project. The DAAO is an academic biography datastore funded by Australian universities and government. We propose adding the daao_record field as per the documentation page.

It has been suggested that we use the {{authority_control}} instead. However the NLA (National Library of Australia) is already a Wikipedia Authority control source. The NLA often prominently displays biographies from the DAAO.

For comparison please see our example record at Mike Parr. This uses the NLA authority control and links to the DAAO biography in the external links section. We'd like to see the DAAO link in the infobox.

• Wikipedia record
• DAAO record
• DAAO biography
• NLA Authority control record
• NLA main record

Queen Victoria (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have any thoughts on this or should I just go ahead and submit a template edit request? Queen Victoria (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The infobox is the wrong place for external links to other resources such as this. -- Netoholic @ 21:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A draft at AFC needs specialist assessment

Please evaluate Draft:Thrill life for acceptability into mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Sionk (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Visual Arts At Wikimania 2014(updated version)

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Ukiyo-e Featured Article Candidate

I've put the ukiyo-e article up as a Featured Article Candidate. Please help review it here. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

FPC Vase with Fifteen Sunflowers

You can now vote on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Vase with Fifteen Sunflowers. The candidacy of this iconic painting by Vincent van Gogh is halfway and needs a few more votes. – Editør (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

"Madonna"

The usage of Madonna is up for discussion at Talk:Madonna_(entertainer)#Requested_move_8 where it is requested that the singer's article be moved to "Madonna". -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

St. Jerome hoax?

I just had to clean up a number of obvious hoaxes committed by 82.8.77.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). A number of his edits were to the article Francesco St Jerome, but even after I removed the obvious stuff, I was left with a nagging sensation that the whole article is itself a hoax. There are no proper references, only two external links, one of which hits a paywall while the other leads to a rather dodgy looking "official" page. The image at Commons, claiming to be by Palma il Giovane, has as its source the "Mark Lawrence Art Collection", a name which resembles one occurring in this contribution by the IP. My knowledge of art history is somewhat sketchy, so I ask the members of this project if you think the article and picture are bona fide or not. I have done a fair bit of image googling for various combinations of "Palma" and "Jerome"/"Girolamo", but to no avail. Oh, and to add to the confusion, there is the equally dubious File:Palmavecchio032.JPG which claims to be by Palma il Vecchio. Favonian (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Good catch. I'd suggest AfD, and removing the image from the artist's biography. Whether or not this is for real, it's never been adequately sourced. At worst it's an attempt by the painting's owner or representative to promote it, complete with the unsourced estimated value. JNW (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The story is fairly clear from the "press" page of the website, which reprints the Times story (it says) from 2008. It doesn't seem implausible to me, but how firm the attribution now is isn't clear. It doesn't seem to have been sold yet. The other picture was uploaded in Jan 2008, apparently before cleaning & reattribution. I agree all the German stuff looks hoaxy, but that came long after. Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Change of heart, per Johnbod; the articles listed at the website's 'press' page can be verified through Google searches. JNW (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much for your input! I'll leave the article be, though I really wish the living person associated with the picture would not claim to be the Lord of Emborough or own the fifth version of The Scream. Favonian (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@JNW and Johnbod: This is going to sound almost cloak-and-daggerish. I have received an anonymous hint drawing my attention to a couple of news items in the Reading Post and The Daily Telegraph. It would appear that Mark Lawrence, the happy owner of Francesco St Jerome and several other interesting paintings, has some problems with verifiability. The Jerome isn't mentioned, but the alleged fifth version of The Scream is. The IP referenced above and intimately associated with the Jerome article boasted about this painting and made unsubstantiated claims about a "Markus Saxe Albertine Wetten Lawrence Von Wettenberg", while, according to the Telegraph article, some of the pictures belonging to Mr. Lawrence of Reading come from "the Wetten family, who originated in the former Duchy of Saxony". All in all, I believe there's reason to believe that the IP editor is Mr. Lawrence and that the source quoted in the article may no longer be sufficient. There may well at some point be material for an article about the "affair", but there would be tricky BLP issues. Meanwhile, we have to figure out what to do with Jerome. I'm inclined to AfD it, but would like to hear your opinions. Favonian (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. I take it we don't have articles on the other works? The Jerome should have been referenced & toned down a bit after the AFD really. You might just say "doubts have been cast" bla bla & reference the stories. The Jerome is small and very fiddly & not normally the sort of thing a modern forger would do, not to end up in Reading anyway. You could go for AFD, but arguably it is becoming more not less notable as the story develops. Johnbod (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Art Galleries vs Art Museums

I suspect this must have been discussed before, if so then please direct me to the relevant discussion ! I have been tidying up the subcategories of Category:Art museums by year of establishment and Category:Art galleries by year of establishment and it strikes me that a member of one can normally be placed in the other also ! How does one identify an entity as being an Art museum rather than an Art gallery, or vice-versa, or would you expect most to be in both categories ? My first thought is that if it has a permanent collection then it is a museum, and if not then its a gallery, but I'm sure I've oversimplified, any thoughts ? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The existence of Category:Art museums and galleries by year makes be believe it may be easier to just merge the categories together into Category:Art museums and galleries by year of establishment ! GrahamHardy (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That is about right. Also galleries (as we and the art trade use the term) are often private and seriously about exhibiting art to sell, but museums are normally public (in the West anyway) and aren't about selling stuff (though they may have the odd commercial exhibition). The categories should not be merged. Of course many museums have "Gallery" in their name, and a few the other way round. Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It sounds as though the vast majority of the members of one category will also be a mamber of the other, are people happy with that ? If they have a permanent collection then they will be classed as museums and galleries. If they do not have a permanent collection then they will be classed as just galleries. So how about having are museums as a subcategory of art galleries ? or are there circumstances in which an Art museum is not an art gallery ? GrahamHardy (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The overlap should not be large at all. Most museums are not galleries in the sense we are talking about, though there should perhaps be a note explaining the difference. The National Gallery is a museum, not a gallery (the National Gallery of Art too). Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Fork of painting

I have redirected the recently created Painting (object) to Painting. The creator had tagged it for this project, saving me the effort of tracking down its exact name. I will notify the creator and mention that I have posted here; if there is disagreement with my action, this is presumably the best place to discuss it. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yngvadottir, I understand your action and at first I wondered whether "a fork" as you call it was necessary, and I have decided it is. The reason is because on Wikidata we have properties to classify things, and while it is fine to be able to link on the English Wikipedia to painting whether you mean it as a verb or as an object, this does not work in other languages. Before you redirected, you could have seen how many languages do make this distinction. Before you say that this is the English Wikipedia and you don't care a whit for other projects, please be aware that classification of paintings is about to happen in a big way when Commons is linked to Wikidata. The state of the stub as I made it does no harm and can act as an anchor page to pin these semantic problems. As I started to make in the article, the distinction of what is considered a painting by heritage agencies (such as museums) is also necessary. Of course, I was also aware that part of the painting article also deals with the concept of a physical painting, and certain parts of it should probably be "forked out" as well, such as painting media. Jane (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The project should discuss this; I'm quite prepared to be reverted :-) I wanted to get to it before a lot of effort had been put into the new article. However, I have to say I don't find the argument that "Wikiemedia is going to do something so we need to change what we do" very compelling. Possibly I don't understand it in the brief form you put it. In any event, I'm hoping project members will talk about it and reach consensus, particularly since it will indeed require appreciable changes at painting if it's restored. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, I am in no hurry so there is plenty of time to discuss it (the Commons - Wikidata will go through with or without this). To be clear, I do not propose doing this for *all* other arts, but I would suggest it for very large categories on Commons, such as Engraving vs Engraving (object) and Sculpture vs Sculpture (object). Jane (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the merge. We already have the distinction in the WP and Commons categories between "painting" and "paintings", "sculpture" and "sculptures", also for engraving/s. I can't see why that doesn't cover it. If anything else is needed the route should be to fork "Painting (technique)" rather than "Painting (object)". God knows what madness is brewing over at Commons and Wikidata. One thing I'm pretty confident about is that it will entirely ignore the vast amount of work the museums world has been putting into structured vocabularies for the last many years. "Engraving" is an especially treacherous term - most things on Commons called engravings in fact aren't, they are etchings or other things. Please note that neither of the two senses of painting (a: "a painting" and b: "the art of painting") is a verb at all. This is simply to misunderstand the words. Johnbod (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you willing to help implement the AAT? Wikidata is currently quite far along in implementing the BNCF Thesaurus. Most of the world's top museums are taking a look at Wikidata so maybe you should too. The paintings in the collection of the Rijkmuseum have items using basic information such as that used in the Commons "artwork" template. Many of them already have a "depicts" property (d:Property:P180) that points to the item connected to the biography of the portrayed person (if it's a portrait), location (if it's a landscape), or AAT term (such as biblical or mythological subjects). There are 125 language versions of Wikipedia with a page for the "art of painting", including the English painting page. There are however only 24 language versions of Wikipedia with a page for "a painting", and English is currently not one of them. I believe it should be (and eventually will be). For general information on how WikiData classifies paintings, see the item for the Mona Lisa d:Q12418. I agree that the various painting media should have their own pages, but in general I find the painting article too long and rambling. It should be split into more discrete and manageable chunks, preferably along the lines of the AAT or other thesaurus of your choice. Same thing for printmaking and engraving - note that Wikipedia's tendency to stuff multiple concepts into one huge article (this is across most languages, not just English) causes confusion on Wikidata such that "wood engraving" d:Q1259197 has become a subclass of something that's not even in English. Someone has already made a brave start to classify these here. Oh and the item for "old master print" d:Q3306138 could also use some wiki love. Jane (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I don't have the time at all, as this is obviously a huge task. We were assured at the start that Wikidata would not involve messing about Wikipedia just to suit it, and I believe strongly that this should remain the case. "Stuffing multiple concepts into one huge article" is a fundamental characteristic of an encyclopedia, but in fact we normally have articles on all the individual aspects as well - look at the categories for engraving and printmaking, where in fact we tend to have too many articles (steel engraving, line engraving, engraving etc). I still don't see the problem with painting at all - just use painting for both. The entry for wood engraving is just wrong - as a relief printing technique it is a sub-class of woodcut rather than of engraving (as its article says), but we have articles for all these, as for most printmaking techniques. Someone has just been misled by the name. How does the AAT classify it? Creating little stubs that no one develops just to match what you think the database needs is no solution. I can answer specific question where I know, but that's it. Johnbod (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

"Stuffing multiple concepts into one huge article" is a fundamental characteristic of an encyclopedia

Fully agree, I came here on a whim but have to add that this entire discussion is completely baroque. There is no way Wikipedia will benefit from a large number of stub articles aimed to

act as an anchor page to pin these semantic problems

For WP:Anatomy where I've been focusing considerable effort this would be dooming. If each feature or each anatomical structure needs a separate entry as per implementing Terminologia Anatomica, Histologica, Embryologica, Anthropologica the entire project is smashed into smithereens. There must be some way to link multiple entries to a single article, otherwise Wikidata will be purely disruptive in nature. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Well it was certainly not my intention to tick you all off by my comments on long and carefully constructed container articles. I assure you I won't bother creating such stubs in future, but I believe it will happen over time anyway. I think it's funny that you don't see Wikidata as an interesting project that can help point people towards Wikipedia content, but you see it as a project that could cause disruptive or even damaging Wikipedia edits. I was wondering why so few contributors to this talk page can be found on the Visual Arts project on Wikidata, and that is probably why, so thanks for spelling that out! The current trend towards mobile reading will change large container articles on Wikipedia into smaller chunks eventually, either by changing what we already have, or by accumulating smaller articles moving forward which will be created on mobile by mobile users with mobile readers in mind. This has nothing to do with me or what I am doing in the Wikiverse at all. Jane (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The Painting article is very lengthy and the word itself has a number of meanings. I don't see a problem with splitting the article at some point, to make it more manageable (and useful). But the Painting (object) stub was sourced to dictionary definitions only, so IMO wasn't really suitable yet. When CFCF asks for "some way to link multiple entries to a single article", isn't the answer a disambiguation page? Sionk (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Sionk, now is not the time to deal with this, considering the backlash. FYI: Disambiguation pages exist on Wikidata, but only as Wikipedia concepts. The same goes for list articles and category pages. This is by design. Jane (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Not when you have articles such as Defibrillator and Defibrillation, where the first is a redirect to the second on the English Wikipedia, but the opposite is true on the German Wikipedia. Currently interlanguage links operated via Wikidata make only half the articles visible, while the other half aren't accessible through the side-bar. As for the trend in shorter articles, I'm not convinced. People who read on tablets can see almost full pages, and they are becoming more and more widespread. I'd like to see some real data/reports on the phenomenon in any case. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it may help to view the WMF monthly report card. This shows that last month mobile views were a quarter of all views. Jane (talk)

So 3/4 aren't. We have plenty of one-line articles to keep mobile readers happy. I can't believe many people click on painting looking for three lines on what one is. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. And I am sure everyone is more than willing to scroll all the way to the last three lines of the article as it is today. Jane (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom from Want (painting)/archive1

Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom from Want (painting)/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom from Want (painting)/archive1 which is a notable painting and the FAC has no comments after over 3 weeks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The reviewer has asked me to rearrange Freedom_from_Want_(painting)#Reactions section. In most of my WP:WPVA FAs people like Ceoil have done a lot of my rearranging. I was hoping someone would be interested in cleaning up this one section.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Choice of image

I wrote up Portrait of Doña Isabel de Requesens y Enriquez de Cardona-Anglesola, but this is not a field in which I am expert. As can be seen from clicking on the Commons category link, we have several versions of this painting to choose from. I used File:Portrait de Jeanne d'Aragon, by Raffaello Sanzio, from C2RMF retouched.jpg, which had been the subject of a rather fraught, and unsuccessful, Featured Picture nomination at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait de Jeanne d'Aragon, by Raffaello Sanzio, from C2RMF retouched.jpg. So far as I can see, only one editor opposed that nomination, but the discussion did not attract many participants. That editor has twice replaced the image in the article with File:Giulio Romano (school of Raphael) - Portrait of Doña Isabel de Requesens - Louvre 612 Joconde 000PE026978.jpg. See Talk:Portrait of Doña Isabel de Requesens y Enriquez de Cardona-Anglesola#Image for a summary of our arguments. Could I ask for some editors with more expertise (and likely better eyesight) than I have to speak to the issue? Perhaps yet a third image would be preferable, such as the unretouched original of the one I had originally used? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Art books for FA writers

Hi, Wikimedia UK has been talking to the Public Catalogue Foundation here in the UK. They have offered us 12 of their books on Oil Paintings in public ownership in the UK to give to FA writers who would find these useful reference material. If you would like one of these books, details of the 85 titles available are here. You do not need to be a member of Wikimedia UK or even resident in the UK to get one of these books, just choose a book and email me. Preference will be given to FA writers. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 10:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Note the information in the books is essentially that available on the PCF/BBC "Your Paintings" website, sorted by large owner or area into books. But they are very handsome objects. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

New York Watercolor Club / Society

I would like to start an article about the New York Watercolor Club, but I've seen it's name (unless there's more than one organization here) the following ways:

• New York Watercolor Club (see SI Collection - name used 1935-1938) - used in 7 WP articles
• New York Watercolor Society - used in 3 WP articles
• New York Water Color Club (see SI Collections) - used in 14 WP articles
• New York Water Color Society - used in 1 WP article

Are there any opinions about 1) whether these are all meant to represent the same organization (for instance, maybe New York Water Color Society is a branch of American Watercolor Society, but I've not been able to find anything to make that connection)? 2) what name should be used for the article?

Thanks!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

My advice is to pick the one you like and create redirects for ALL of the others. This will increase findability for external readers as well as all Wiki(p/m)edians. O and I totally agree that we need that article badly. Jane (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

There may have been more than one organization, or they may have had more than one name. If you don't have sources to clarify this, you won't safely get far with the article, I would suggest. I wouldn't worry too much about what Wikipedia articles say - hit google books. Johnbod (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! It seems that the best title is New York Watercolor Club - it seems that the 2 word Water Color was used in the late 19th century and shifted to one word sometime in the 20th century, born out by info from the two Smithsonian Institution links.

I'm thrown by the use of "Society" - but I like the idea of having redirects to the article, which may spark someone to speak up if there is a distinction. (Previous research of source info showed club is used more than society.)

Thanks, Jane and John, that helps a lot!--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Titling movements MOS

Most art movements have been capitalized on Wikipedia almost as if by default, only I would like to see what that default is because I haven't found it, only MOS:DOCTCAPS#Doctrine which to me suggests lower-case is in order. I just want to know what's right! Nonc01 (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Caps are most often used...Modernist (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course, but is it correct, more importantly. Nonc01 (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is a right or wrong way. The norm in the English speaking art world is definitely to write movements with Caps (rather than like this: impressionism). However, in French they are written in lower case (as many other words). Coldcreation (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

According to MOS:DOCTCAPS#Doctrine there is definitely a right and wrong way, though, and I'm not interested in doing it the populous wrong way based on generalizations unrelated to Wikipedia. There has been similar illuminations this year about uppercase vs. lowercase in sidebars, which ironically enough at the time I disputed a situation with someone where I wanted the caps simply because it looked right to me. But I've come to realize I was wrong...which makes the lowercase, when objectively called for by Wikipedia, look a lot better to me. Nonc01 (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to check here: WP:VAMOS...Modernist (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The section itself raises possibilities and makes no definitive caps style claims. None! A non-updated graveyard of dead links to questionable sources anyway. The bottom of the section neutralizes the top and indicates delegation to dictionary and Wikipedia MOS. You may want to request comment on the busy general board though Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters, but I doubt they refute their own MOS. Nonc01 (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The language at MOS:DOCTCAPS#Doctrine is pretty unambiguous. It seems that—as suggested in this essay—the preference for lower case derives from the premise that "the most reliable sources on how to capitalize, italicize, hyphenate or otherwise style the name of a subject or its subtopics in a general-interest work like an encyclopedia are reliable works on style and grammar in English broadly, not just in the specialty at issue." And it is certainly true that The Chicago Manual of Style, the Oxford English Dictionary, Webster's Unabridged and the like favor lower case for most art movements. For example, The Chicago Manual of Style recommends lower case for art deco, baroque, cubism, fauvism, impressionism, etc. (the very few exceptions include Dadaism/Dada, Gothic, Hudson River school, Pre-Raphaelite, Romanesque; romanticism is "sometimes capitalized to avoid ambiguity"). Encyclopedia Britannica uses upper case for many of these.

WP:VAMOS is more favorable to upper case than MOS:DOCTCAPS, and is part of Wikipedia's MOS. On the other hand, our VA Featured Articles apparently always use lower case (except with broader terms like Renaissance). Ewulp (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually we do have several FA that use caps...Modernist (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You're right; I posted the above after checking about a dozen articles and finding no support for my own position (I like upper case). Further investigation shows that Las Meninas and The Blind Leading the Blind capitalize Baroque; The Raft of the Medusa capitalizes Romantic, Neoclassical, and Realist; The Battle of Alexander at Issus has Romanticism (also German Expressionism, but it's part of a quote); The Garden of Earthly Delights has Surrealists; Funerary art has Baroque and Neo-Classicism. El Greco has Mannerism, Impressionism, Symbolists, Expressionism but also German expressionist, abstract expressionist, baroque, and Cubism in the lede but cubism in the body of the article. Ukiyo-e uses upper case for Impressionist, Post-Impressionist, and Art Nouveau. So if FAs are our guide to best practices—and they should be—it is clear that flexibility is allowed in this matter, depending on local consensus. Ewulp (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I was going to say - in my experience they almost always use caps, as they should. But when a movement name becomes a general style term, usually later, things may change. Thus there are Realists and realists, Romantics and romantics, Neo-classical and neo-classical, and so on. But eg Cubist, Impressionist & Abstract Expressionist should always be capitalized (or maybe are being mis-used), and generally any -ism should be. The WP:VAMOS section (which I wrote) seems clear and correct, even if the source it originally used is apparently no longer online (as it has been updated to say). If Nonc01 wants it kept simple, then USE CAPS! Thank you. Johnbod (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I would think that lower case/upper case hinges on how the term is being used, which in turn hinges on how a good source is using the term. I think Geometric abstraction, Abstract art, Hard-edge painting, and Lyrical abstraction could be either capitalized or not. I think it depends on how the source is using the term. When the term is being used in an effort to describe artwork in words—then I don't think capitalization is appropriate. It depends on the intentions of the source. If we are using internal links to any of these terms, but we are not intending to imply that the artworks are a part of such a movement, assuming such a movement exists, we should probably make clear by surrounding wording that we are merely describing appearance without implying membership in any such group. These are merely my own opinions. Bus stop (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

A new article needs a lot of help

A new by a brand new editor about paper lace artist Hina Aoyama needs a lot of help to get it up to standard, it is written in rather poor English and contains quite a lot of puffery. The subject appears to be genuinely notable so deletion is not really an option. (BTW paper lace is a redlink, but Paper Lace is about a band. I never knew there was more to it than cheap machine made paper doilies or kindergarten "crafts", it's an actual art form!) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The initial clean-up has been done - and papercutting is the correct article about the art form. Interested editors are nevertheless welcome to help improve the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I have redirected paper lace to papercutting even though the latter article covers a much broader topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

People who make images "not suck"

Hello,

I don't know if you're already familiar with this group or not, but after seeing a Wikipedia ad on my page for The graphics lab, I submitted a request Please help make "Grandma Moses" images "not suck" (phrase from the ad). (The article is currently under GA review.) I looked in commons at the "before" version of some of their work - and they are incredible.

Perhaps some project members have images in articles that they'd like spruced up.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a great project, and its members very helpful. However, I've disabled that animated gif, of text, which breaches our own and international standard guidelines for accessibility. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree in general, but having taken a look at what they get up to I'm concerned that some of their work is creating truely horrible fake colourised versions of b/w originals. These should not be used in articles, or done as part of WP at all. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that input. I don't know if the colourisation was a "special request" or not. They made some changes to Images of two Grandma Moses that I don't think are an issue. Your input is helpful about how far NOT to take it!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Wanted: Articles for sculptures, monuments and memorials in London

Following is a list of sculptures, monuments and memorials without Wikipedia articles. User:Ham and I have put this list together and we believe the links below reflect the most appropriate article titles based on naming conventions. I have been creating many articles for London artworks since my recent visit to the city, but I welcome other editors to please assist with the creation of these articles to help improve the encyclopedia.

• Barbican Muse
• Edith Cavell Memorial
• Equestrian statue of the Earl Roberts, London
• Equestrian statue of the Viscount Wolseley
• Statue of Benjamin Disraeli, Parliament Square
• Statue of David Lloyd George, Parliament Square
• Statue of Edward Jenner, London
• Statue of George Canning, Parliament Square
• Statue of Jan Smuts, Parliament Square
• Statue of José de San Martín, London
• Statue of Lord Palmerston, Parliament Square
• Statue of Robert Peel, Parliament Square
• Statue of Simón Bolívar, London
• Statue of the Duke of Cambridge, Whitehall
• Statue of the Duke of Devonshire, Whitehall
• Statue of the Earl of Derby, Parliament Square
• Statue of Trajan

All help welcome! ----Another Believer _(Talk) 23:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Heinz Braun

I just approved it and moved it to the mainspace. I would be delighted if someone could give it a look and assure me that he's notable. Although few good refs, it seemed overwhelmingly likely that he is. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I will add some comments to the article talk page... but one thing is that aside from the attribution to the German article, there is just one source for the article, at that's a biography page from a website in the deceased artist's name. Not the only way, but for me a key way, of determining notability is whether there is much written in books, magazines or newspapers about the subject of the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Preference for images w/wo frames

Hi,

Is there a preference about whether images should/should not include the frame (example: Susanna Paine, third image)?

I didn't see anything in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts, so it's probably not a big deal - my preference would probably be to crop out the frame, but it would be good to get input before I do that.

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Carole, I agree with your preference. If up to me, would always crop away the frame, except in cases where it's obviously an integral part of the work - such as some of the pointillist frames I've seen, or the hand-worked frames of Charles Prendergast, etc. I think frames in a photo often seem more distracting than enhancing. - Xenxax (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, cool - I definitely get your point about the pointillist frames. That makes lots of sense to me, Xenxax. Thanks.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking also - being guided by a "manual of style" of general practice - that most art books very rarely include the frame in a photo of a painting. - Xenxax (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Good point! I made the change and it does look much better.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Carole. The third Susanna Paine painting looks much better without the frame - a good decision. An excellent and interesting page too ... you did an amazing amount of work on it today, really improved it immensely! - Xenxax (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been a fun one to work on. It's so rare to see a stub - where there is so much great source material - and such a great life story. It's still a work-in-progress -- and probably desperately needs copyediting (which is easier for me when I get all the pieces and parts in) -- but I'm getting there.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice: Utamaro's Three Beauties of the Present Day—Featured Article Candidate

I've nominated for Featured Article the article for the ukiyo-e print Three Beauties of the Present Day by Utamaro. Please come participate in the review! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Newsflash – Leonardo was straight

There have been five hundred years of scholarly uncertainty on the matter, but finally a user has determined definitively that Leonardo da Vinci was heterosexual. His proof? Leonardo wrote the following:

"The bat, by reason of its unbridled lewdness, does not follow any natural law in pairing, but male goes with male, female with female, as they chance to find themselves together."

I've already reverted the user for what I consider to be a ridiculous bit of original research at best, and they, of course, reverted back. Rather than me reverting again, I'd prefer someone else to take care of it, so they'll see that it's not just me disagreeing about this matter. Here's a link to the edit (which you'll have to "undo" rather than "revert", since there's been an additional edit since then). Thanks, MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted. The cite being used as definitive is nonsense. Cheezus, now I remember why left. Thanks for spotting this, Mandarax. JNW (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, JNW. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lamentation of Christ by Mary and John

Dear art experts: This old AfC submission is about a painting by a famous painter, but the article has problems. It's unsourced and the text is essay-like. Is this something that should be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Illustrators workgroup/project?

Anybody interested in collaborating on a project or workgroup on illustrators? Category:Illustrators and its subcategories are well-populated, but not terriby well organised, and there are significant illustrators awaiting articles (I've recently added Margery Gill and Anthony Colbert), and no doubt lots of articles need improving. Obviously it's a broad field and would benefit from the attention of as many knowledgeable people as possible. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Reactionary artist?

Hi,

I came across the following statement about late 19th century / early 20th century artist Emily Sartain:

"In contrast to her progressive political views, Emily Sartain was a reactionary artist. She expressed herself in the foreign idioms of European painting and genre scenes."

If it helps, I found it on this page. What do you think "reactionary artist" means in this context? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Just very conservative and reliant on European models - "reactionary" might be thought over-doing it somewhat. The linked page explains it ok I think. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wanted to make sure it didn't mean more than that... for instance, I was side-tracked by Reactionary modernism... which I knew didn't fit but made me question "reactionary". Thanks much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed addition to infobox artist

see this thread. Frietjes (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Is tfaoi reliable source?

I am working on expanding Lucy May Stanton and a primary source of information is an article on http://www.tfaoi.com/aa/3aa/3aa285.htm - written by Betty Alice Fowler, who was apparently at the Georgia Museum of Art. It:

• is a tertiary source.
• has some chronological information that is out of synch with a secondary source, North American Women Artists (I posted a question about that on Talk:Lucy May Stanton, and will also continue to research it.)
• makes statements I cannot corroborate, for instance that James P. Fields was a "top artist" in Atlanta - there's hardly anything written (he's in 7 books as James P. Field, 3 of which are his teacher-student relationship with Stanton and one, that is possibly him, as James Polk Field) about him and he's not in SIRIS or VIAF.

Would you consider http://www.tfaoi.com/aa/3aa/3aa285.htm a reliable source? Any thoughts about tfaio in general? I don't think I've ever cited it because I have been unclear about tfaoi's reliability in general.

I was stuck about whether to post this here or reliable sources, but since it's an art site, this seemed to make the most sense. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I struck out the part that has been solved.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it best to take the question about the Traditional Fine Arts Organization (tfaoi.com) website being a reliable site to the RS page?--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Carole. I've never been to tfaoi.com before this evening, but I think it looks pretty good. It may be a tertiary source, but where it gives access to secondary sources (without editing them) it could be a fairly reliable resource to use. Plus it's easy to travel from there to the secondary source itself. I looked up a 2010 exhibition at the Hudson River Museum (http://www.tfaoi.com/aa/9aa/9aa431.htm) and very quickly got from the tfaoi text to the same text at the museum website (http://www.hrm.org/exhibits/PastExhibits.html). I checked out a couple other pages and all were accurate and gave me a way to get to the original.

I also found this page on their site, which may be of interest if you haven't seen it already: http://www.tfaoi.com/aa/9aa/9aa629.htm

So ... all that to say that I'd have no problem with using this resource. -Xenxax (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you Xenxax for looking into this! Much appreciated!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments on V&A Chandelier by Dale Chihuly

Hi, just wondering if anyone wanted to contribute to this discussion on Talk:V&A Chandelier by Dale Chihuly about potentially renaming the page. Many thanks. Libby norman (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

LG Williams

Hi WikiProject, if anyone can please add LG Williams to their watchlist, it would be appreciated. The article could use some other eyes from community members familiar with art. The subject's notability wasn't very well established, but the bulk of the article appears to be an indiscriminate list of references, works, and other content. The article recently received a bad-faith AfD nomination, (which has been resolved) but the article is chiefly being edited by one SPA user who doesn't have much experience beyond this article and who is getting a bit snippy with people who are trying to improve the article and direct its focus. I suspect a COI, but that remains to be seen. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Casualism

Dear art experts: Is "Casualism" a notable art genre? This old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft unless someone decides it's worth improving. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

In terms of notability: I'm not able to find many reliable sources. It's interesting that Casualism is not mentioned in the articles for individuals identified as Casualists in the draft. I could only find Hansel and Gretel Picture Garden (one person identified as a "New Casualist") for a potential wikilink to Casualism (art). So, it doesn't seem to be notable.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, CaroleHenson, for taking the time to check that out. The page has been deleted.—Anne Delong (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Colin McCahon

Hi everyone,

I'd really love some help to fix the page of New Zealand artist Colin McCahon. It's very messy and badly referenced. Even going through the references given and finding additional information within these sources would be good.

I'm surprised that (arguably) the most popular and important modern artist from this country has so little attention given to him and such a messy article! I'm in the process of making all the changes that I can, but I have also flagged some areas for improvement. There are some good beginner tasks there if you want some experience in editing. --Clawsyclaw (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

looking for feedback on American artist notability

I am a relatively new editor (since June 2013) and as I was criticized for writing only on Canadian artists, I'd like to add entries on American artists Jean-Jacques Duval and Barry Gealt. To me the first, a stained-glass designer is notable for sure because he was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Stained Glass Association of America in 2005, won the commission for the Vatican Pavilion for the 1964 New York World's Fair as well as other famous buildings in US, Canada and Japan, addressed US Embassy in Ottawa, and was the subject of a biography in Stained Glass Magazine. The second, Barry Geault is of interest because he also exhibits in Canada and Germany and has reviews in Canada and US. However the public collections are mostly universities and area museums ie Dayton Art Institute, Indiana University, Snite Museum of Art, Trisolini Gallery - Ohio University, Udine Museum of Modern Art, Udine, Italy, Brauer Museum of Art - Valparaiso University, Las Vegas Art Museum, Indiana State Museum. Do you think that a Gealt entry would be declined for notability? Thanks 70.52.29.161 (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Education_Program:Muhlenberg_College/Women_and_Art_(Fall_2014)

Not I think notified here. Sample of edits so far don't seem bad, but could do with touching up. Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Three Beauties of the Present Day. — Cirt (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Heng

Dear visual arts experts: I came across this page because it was copied into mainspace from a draft at AfC. It seems rather essay-like and POV to me, but I'm not an expert in this field. I have left a message about my concerns on the talk page. Perhaps someone who knows how and artist's Wikipedia page should look could weigh in on this. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

LG Williams

Extended content

as a professional art historian, who makes a living as an art historian, i have had the pleasure to review the literature and citations of dozens of art-related articles surrounding the (Rat Bastard Protective Association) RBPA with great pleasure. it is from this careful reading that i would like to share my observations: i strongly disagree with the tone and temperament found in the LG Williams Talk page. most of the discussions in the Talk Page consists of either blatant editorial bias, original research of unknown origins and notability, unsupported editorial analysis - accusations, or irrational (and unprecedented) judgements of a totally inappropriate character (like pictures of bikini-clad, faceless women on the beach.). in my brief reading experience on wikipedia this bias is also reflected in the edits in the LG Williams article. the most puzzling fact surrounding this incidence is this: from what i can discover, i see absolutely no reason for the blatant hostility to the artist. the artist, from a distinguished institution, is simply an artist making art that he has been trained to make - and then people write about it in notable publications. the artist is certainly no PT Barnum. speaking of which, even the accomplished PT Barnum wikipedia article editors are respectful to the material and primary sources -- these editors adhere to wiki-policies and does not attempt to invent (original research) scenarios in an attempt to destroy the primary and secondary sources with contempt. from what I have read in the wiki-guidelines this behavior is inappropriate. i would be curious to read what other non-biased editors thought. such bias and inappropriate behavior should be reverted immediately and remedied. over the next few days i will try to bring attention to this uncharacteristic situation. --Ratbastardassn (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You've posted the same screed at that page; please don;t do that. Post once, then post pointers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey all, we could still use some experienced eyes at this article because we've been dealing with sockpuppetry issues, namely the chief early contributor, Xxxartxxx was found to be a sock of indeffed sock operator Art4em based on behavioral evidence, and the screed writer above, Ratbastardassn was confirmed to be a sock of Xxxartxxx based on CheckUser evidence. User seems motivated to keep the article up, but their methodologies (sockpuppetry, condescending digs at other editors, bombastic diatribes) only cloud the matter. If any experienced editors can argue for why the subject is notable, we'd love to hear it, lest we'll probably nom the article for speedy deletion per G5 "banned or blocked user" in a day or two. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggest you AfD is rather than Speedy delete, it doesn't qualify for G5 because it's been worked on substantially by other (non-blocked) editors. Personally I think LG Williams has some notability, though by no means as much as the artist/socks like to believe. Sionk (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The additional work has mainly been to sort out what content needed to be removed from the article because the sources weren't reliable secondary sources or inappropriate content. So, I can see G5 as being a viable option, but AfD works, too. I think that would be wise to tease this out. This article was deleted in 2012 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG Williams) due to notability issues, so has the artist's career advanced enough since then for notability? I believe that I read that two of those years since then he worked as a realtor in Hawaii.

Because of the number of issues with the sources, I wonder how much of what is left is really valid. I'm happy to notify for deletion to sort this out.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:LG Williams#Proposed deletion (because there is already a AfD page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG Williams from 2012).--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Orientalism

I posted this message on the talk page of Orientalism: "This article is too long and tries to hit too many targets. For instance the section on religion seems out of place and there is almost no discussion of literature. I think it should be a general discussion of the topic and the rest should be split out to articles such as Or and architecture, Or and religion, Or and art, Or and literature etc." Please comment there. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"Impressionism" or "impressionism"?

Hi all! It's been a while. See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Visual_arts#Capitalization_and_art_movements - some of you will have encountered this anti-capitalization editor at Picabia. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Red Gate

I have suggested that this article be renamed, and the background material split off into a general article on Russian memorial gates. For the two separate discussions, see Talk:Red Gate (These ate two separate discussions, neither of which depend on the result of the other, if participating in both discussions, please leave the appropriate opinion in the appropriate section) -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)