Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Archive 3

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Johnbod in topic Archive as Historical?
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Infoart

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

User:Infoart writes for the Saatchi Gallery web site. He has created many articles on the same artists on wikipedia, initially using the same text (which he says he owns the copyright of) and then paraphrasing it. The text is "art talk" and not suitable for a wikipedia article. One solution is to speedy delete them all as advertising requiring a rewrite. I feel it would be more in wikipedia's interest to keep them and bring them to an acceptable standard, initially by stubbing them. When this has been done, the article can be "signed off" by an established, neutral editor by putting the usual 4 tildes ~ next to it. Tyrenius 13:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tyrenius that stubbing (and then allowing the community to expand) rather than deleting is the way forward, but I do have the buttons should it be decided to remove articles. I have issued Infoart with a warning regarding their contributions, and will impose a temporary block if deemed necessary. LessHeard vanU 14:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC) (ps "I don't know much about art, but I do know what I.." feel an encyclopedia article should look "...like.")
Also agreed. Main task is to scrap the curatorial bits and rewrite as descriptions that cut to the chase. More subjective views, if properly sourced, could be added later. The rather indisriminate inline external links also need tidying (ie those with pages here / those worth redlinking here / those insufficiently notable to link at all).
As I said elsewhere, unless Infoart is the Saatchi Gallery (ie someone acting in its corporate role), I don't quite see how he/she can own the copyright, even if he/she wrote the text. Work done for an employer generally belongs to that employer; and the only copyright notice on the website is "Copyright 2003-2006 © The Saatchi Gallery". Gordonofcartoon 15:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree with the approach - I will try to help a bi, but won't be able to do much over the next days. Johnbod 15:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I worked on Duane Hanson, some are just too unestablished. Modernist 23:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
If some really don't pass WP:N (even with Saatchi credibility) I suggest they are noted for speedy on the list below. Other editors might have material to justify keeping the article, and, if not, LessHeard vanU or I could delete if we concur. It would help us to keep track and assess how worthwhile Infoart's contributions are and how much, if any, is just spam. Tyrenius 01:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I will delete per firm advice below, as I am unable to judge the references, but where delete is questioned I think that the article should stay. I will strike through any query on delete for other editors to consider. If it should be deleted please confirm, if not please remove suggestion. LessHeard vanU 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted some based on the evidence currently in the article, but this is without prejudice to recreation, as I suspect that some could be improved and pass WP:N. Tyrenius 13:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Thank you for your recent messages on my talks page. I deeply apologise for causing so much conccern, and thank you for your kind advice. As I understand there are 2 main concerns with my contrbutions, the first pertaining to style. I will postpone adding any more pages and study your edits, and will model any future contributions on the changes you've made. Your comments re: artwriting vs. encyclopedia writing are greatly appreciated and noted. I would like to continue to add pages for Wikipedia, as it is a resource I use often in my own work, and its expansion in the field of contemporary art I hope would be a benefit. As suggested on my talks page, perhaps the best way to approach this is by writing drafts which would be approved by the editorial committee before they are placed? Please let me know how, when, and if to proceed.

The second main concern appears to be with copyright. Most of the artists pages I've written to date are artists featured in the Saatchi Collection. In contributing these I am not working on behalf of the Saatchi Collection, they are just simply the first batch of artists I was hoping to contribute about; I've aso worked with many other museums and exhibitions and would like to move on to contributing pages for these artists as well in the future. I have spoken with the Saachi Collection and they are pleased to give copyright clearance for all text that might be in question. Please contact Kieran McCann at kieran@saatchigallery.com for confirmation.

Thank you again for all of your kind consideration. I sincerely hope that I will be able to continue to collaborate with Wiki, and again apologise for my misunderstandings. Any assistance and advice you could provide is greatly appreciated, and I look forward to learning more about Wiki procedure and standards, and continuing our communications.

Very best, --Infoart 10:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've replied at User_talk:Infoart#Infoart Style & Copyright. Tyrenius 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, one thing worth including during these cleanups is a description of the medium and content of each artist's work. The gallery bios usually give a summary. Gordonofcartoon 19:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be considered a bit of a cheek, but we could always ask User:Infoart, being familiar with the types and styles, to lift a quote from the Saatchi Gallery references that gives an indication of the medium/movement, etc. LessHeard vanU 19:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Now that this is underway and other editors are involved, I definitely think we should be inviting Infoart to work with us. Tyrenius 13:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Infoart#Feedback

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please leave feedback to help Infoart with future contributions at the above location. Tyrenius 13:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Thank You!

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks a million for setting up the feedback forum! This is so incredibly helpful. Will take all under advisement, and hopefully make big improvements. And also thanks for inviting me to participate in the editing/clean up. I really appreciate it, and can definitely use the practice. Very best, --Infoart 10:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you clean up some articles and sign below. Then another editor can review, comment where necessary (or add to your feedback section) and "sign off" the article below, when they're happy with it. I should mention all of this is not a reflection on your writing as such, but on specific wiki policies which need to be met. Tyrenius 13:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Users participating in the cleanup

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Articles by Infoart

Latest comment: 17 years ago174 comments6 people in discussion

List of articles started or edited by Infoart. Most recent at the top. This list is complete as of 25 May, 2007 from Infoart's contribution history.[1]. Approx 185 articles (not all started by Infoart).

List now starts at the bottom with the earliest edit. Please delete any duplicates.

Articles by Ktm10

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Ktm10 edits: this is resolved - no need for further attention. Tyrenius 05:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A similar problem seems to exist with User:Ktm10. List needs to be completed. Most recent at the top. Ktm10's contribution history.[2]



Please note when the list goes back to the earliest edit.

It appears that Ktm10 creates stubs, and that the "similar" text is added by Infoart. This appears backed up by viewing the above four article histories (all four started as stubs, 2 of which were added to by Infoart). If other editors agree we can remove this editors articles from review. LessHeard vanU 15:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if you're happy there's no need to look into them further. I suggest we keep here as a record but mark as "no further action needed". I had an earlier run-in with a couple of editors about a year ago over using Saatchi Gallery for promo purposes. It's on the article talk page. Tyrenius 01:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A brief aside

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

As I've been editing, it struck me that most of these articles, in addition to listing most or all exhibitions the particular artist had been involved in, also list the exhibition titles. I'm personally okay with listing a selection of major gallery/museum/biennial appearances to establish notability, but do we need the exhibition titles as well? If it's Sensation, that's notable, but is the title of every show necessary? Is exhibiting at Tate Modern enough without giving the title of the actual show? I'm fine with the UK editors deciding which specific exhibitions in this list are notable enough to actually name, since some of us are rather removed from Mother Britannia, here in the backcountry of the Commonwealth, and don't get to see much of the YBAs and other Saatchi discoveries. Just wondering. Freshacconci 21:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

IMO if it is linked and it is blue on the preview then keep, red then remove. The general readership, it may be assumed, will not recognise the exhibition but may do so the gallery. Again, if the same exhibition is noted on the cv of two or more subjects who pass our ad hoc notability test here then perhaps it may be worth keeping and making a article of when the current task is finished? LessHeard vanU 21:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Further to above, I am removing the exhibitions but linking the galleries/mueseums even if they are red. Galleries are far more permanent than exhibitions (and artists, often) and may benefit from the same effort I proposed re multi referenced exhibitions above. LessHeard vanU 22:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep, agreed. I think named exhibitions won't be notable, but galleries may be, so - benefit of doubt - redlink them. Gordonofcartoon 00:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm generally in favour of keeping exhibition titles, or at least selected ones, as the title in itself gives an insight into the artist and adds to the completeness of the article. If and when the stubs expand, at least certain titles will be added back in as a matter of course, so I would advise judicious pruning with some titles retained to give the flavour of how the artist chooses to label their work for the world. Inclusion in certain major shows is of interest in itself as well as going a long way to establishing notability. I've listed some below in a separate section so they can altered/added to/discussed. They have been major features in the UK art scene. Tyrenius 06:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Where an article includes "notable" exhibitions per listing below I suggest other exhibitions should remain, for continuity, and formatted as suggested (but no link created). LessHeard vanU 15:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC) See Clayton Brothers for example; one blue link, one red link and one no link exhibitions. LessHeard vanU 16:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Formatting titles

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) titles of individual visual artworks should be italicised, except sculptures, which should be in double quote marks. There was no mention of art exhibitions, so I've added that to italicised titles. See talk page. Single quotes should never be used, as they stop that material from coming up in the search result (unless that's been changed of late). Tyrenius 06:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Having said that, I've just speedy deleted Dan Brady whose only claim to fame seems to be inclusion in the New Blood show. Second opinions welcome on this. Tyrenius 07:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Another aside

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've added notability tags to several articles, although most should be deleted. A few recent group shows do not make an artist notable. Modernist 15:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Group shows of note

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This list is not comprehensive, but relates particularly to articles started/worked on by Infoart as above. Tyrenius 12:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Saatchi Gallery
Royal Academy
ICA
New York

New draft articles by Infoart

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Infoart has created draft articles on

and asked for feedback. Tyrenius 18:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Just when you thought it would soon be all over!

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I found another editor had quickly reverted me (presumably in good faith, but without an edit summary) for what I can only think was for vandalism. I have been leaving a succinct edit summary, but it is possible that other artists we have precised have also been reverted. Once we have cleared the list we will have to review them to ensure our work hasn't been undone. I suggest we divvy up the work between those editors with the time available and each have their segment to look over (from artist XA to artist XE, then artist XF to artist XJ, etc.) Hopefully there will be very few that need re-reverting, and messages left. LessHeard vanU 21:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been suggested that, per above, that contributors to this task should review each others edits (to revert reverts, catch typos, etc) once the final artists have been checked. Once an article has been re-reviewed it can be bolded in the listing above, and placed on the reviewers watchlist (anyone with a bursting watchlist can contact me, mine is light). Please would available editors make themselves known below: LessHeard vanU 23:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I found another editor had quickly reverted me
Where? Don't worry; I'm very much in re policing art articles. Gordonofcartoon 00:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
All the ones I've looked at are on my watchlist, and everything's fine. (Unless you count some interesting exchanges about whether Dexter Dalwood used to live in a shed and a minor edit skirmish about whether or not Dash Snow's high society and celebrity links should be included in his article - nothing out of the ordinary!). But, if you want to police another gallery apparently promoting their artists you might want to keep an eye on Rivington Arms, and the primary editor there. --Ethicoaestheticist 00:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive as Historical?

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Is it time, now, to tag this and put it to bed? I am quite willing to continue to be available to help Infoart as required, but I feel this little project has now drawn to its conclusion. LessHeard vanU 21:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Good work all round. User:InfoArt still has some draft articles in user space, but hasn't edited recently. Tyrenius 21:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I couldn't help; if people have appetite for more, see the similar User:VAwebteam and User:VAwebteam/To do list Johnbod 21:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I read the "how to" bit on archiving a page and I am none the wiser (I am better informed than previously, but with no understanding how I am supposed to effect the new information I have) and would be grateful if somebody else could do the putting to bed of this page. LessHeard vanU 21:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC) ps. Johnbod, I looked at the links provided and ran away... I'm sure the other editors here are made of sterner stuff
Well I don't blame anyone who isn't - I didn't quite feel I could inflict it on the VA project!Johnbod 21:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Archive_3&oldid=335690368"