This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
This article needs work, help and a new name...see talk here: [1]
I think it can turn into an interesting article... Modernist ( talk) 12:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed Romaine Brooks for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found an image issue, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. The issue should not be too difficult to address. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 17:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
This thread looks serious enough to be paid attention to... [2]... Modernist ( talk) 12:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:
-- Mr. Z-man 00:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Could do with some input. I don't have much time right now. See article talk page. Ty 02:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
A new feature on Google image search allows a parameter for free images in the advanced search option. [4] That doesn't mean they are free, just that they have been tagged by someone as such. I found one copyvio immediately. Ty 02:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
What is the point of hassling this image? Is the threat to delete this image really necessary? -
given that it is it is from the middle ages and its in the pd I don't understand this...I understand the tag says it needs a source - but for what reason? WP:UCS says let it be... Modernist ( talk) 02:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
NFC image issues need to be addressed. See Talk:Western_painting#Number_of_images. Ty 12:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of this article and dues to the number of concerns raised, I have de-listed it. Review at Talk:Canaletto/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 13:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a GA Sweeps reassessment of this article and found a large number of concerns which can be see ay Talk:Caravaggio/GA1. The article has been de-listed, but can be brought back to WP:GAN when these have been addressed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 15:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Please weigh in your opinion here: [6]... Modernist ( talk) 13:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Has a number of sentences with no sources which may be POV. Other editors opinions needed please. [ [7]]-- Kbob ( talk) 02:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Opinions requested at Talk:Art_Renewal_Center#Vallen's_opinion. Ty 00:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you could help settle a dating/authorship issue on the file concerned.
It mentions it's a Baxter print, but also mentions another indivdual (in whose books the print may have appeared). The date of 1880 also seems outside the lifetime of THE George Baxter.
Thanks in advance. :)
Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 00:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The Joanne Gair has a {{ non free}} tag and the talk page has a section discussing this issue. Commentary is welcome.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 01:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up - I came across this article and tagged it with your project. APK that's not my name 19:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.
The Transhumanist 23:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Any input would be appreciated, although I think this is a rather straightforward merge proposal. freshacconci talktalk 11:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a question about this artists notability. Charles James Martin (artist) appreciate any opinions as to whether or not this is a legitimately notable inclusion... Modernist ( talk) 20:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring by another editor who is reverting my NPOV edits, blanking out talk page comments and general incivility. freshacconci talktalk 14:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
...copied from the Arts project talk. This page is really terrible. Johnbod ( talk) 03:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, here's a relevant discussion about subject development you might find interesting.
The Transhumanist 00:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I would appreciate other opinions concerning his inclusion at Impressionism - discussion is here: [12]... Modernist ( talk) 14:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Just an FYI, this article had a proposed deletion template on it but the photographer is notable and there's a reasonable amount of coverage of the exhibition through critical reviews. The article has been around for years as a one-sentence stub and probably deserves improvement. I tagged it with your project in case someone wants to take a look at it, thanks! -- Atama chat 21:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I have done a GA Reassessment of The Battle of Alexander at Issus as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to nearly meet the current GA Criteria. I did see a couple of issues that cause me to not immediately keep the article at GA. I have placed it on hold for a week pending work. My review can be found here. I am notifying all interested projects and editors in the hopes that work can be done. Should you have questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles ( talk) 20:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Please visit Talk:Portrait painting#profile, half-turn, three-quarter, or full face! Thx! -- Diwas ( talk) 19:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
A new editor User:Artshoworganizer, a probable sock of User:Cramyourspam (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Ward), is creating some WP:POINTy AFD noms to some articles I created, plus a few others (including Matthew Barney). It looks like he didn't properly nominate them, just stuck the template at the top, but I'm not sure if I can just revert these or not. Anyone know if this is just a matter of reverting as vandalism? freshacconci talktalk 03:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm not making this up. History of painting See for yourself. I can't imagine why we need more than 400 images to convey ANY subject in an encyclopedic way. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there are far too many images, even for a subject where images are central (which they are not for WWII). It also makes the page slow to open. However, a restriction of one per section is just going to the other extreme. WP:SUMMARY is the way forward, and the images have been selected, so it will be relatively easy to move them to dedicated articles in due course. In terms of length, there is a featured article, Intelligent design with 178 kB at number 104 on Special:Longpages. [13] A significant problem is the small number of editors on wikipedia with sufficient knowledge and interest to edit art articles. This article is a work in progress, not a finished product. Of rather more concern than the number of images is the disproportionate space given to Western painting, in particular the 20th century, which currently occupies half the article. I find it anomalous that in an assessment of the article, this point has not been raised, and the focus is all on the images. Surely the overall structure is more important, and necessary to establish before the images can be properly assessed in detail. Ty 22:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) I have concerns about your approach on this page to this issue. You have come to a good place to raise it, and you are welcome here to do so. I agree with you that there is a matter to be addressed. It is an important article, currently no. 172 in Visual Arts pages with over 18,000 views a month. [14] It is also a complex subject that requires careful attention from editors who know what they're doing, and these are thin on the ground. As the posts above show, it is something that requires diplomatic handling.
You have introduced the matter in an aggressive way with "shouting" in the heading and your initial post. Per Wikipedia:TPG#Good_practices:
Please note: "It undermines a reasoned argument with the appearance of force". This is something then compounded by your use of bullet points, despite not even starting the thread with that format and it not being used by others in the first five posts. It gives the impression that you think your posts merit a special mark to give them more significance than posts by other editors. As you have said, others in the past have also objected to this practice. If you continue, then consistency forces other editors to follow that format, which technically is not as flexible for these threaded posts.
You have come here to ask for a collegiate response in the application of a guideline, yet ignore the content of another guideline yourself, and present yourself in a manner which is likely simply alienate other editors. J Milburn, who you know well as another editor like yourself with a particular interest in NFC issues, has worked very successfully with here, as can be seen directly above at #Grant Wood:
Editors here are prepared to work on these issues, but merit respect and also an appreciation of the difficulties with the small number of editors available, some of whom are working on a FA at the moment.
This issue needs considered dialogue. It is not just about the images, but about the article as a whole. It is not going to be resolved properly overnight, and requires slow careful work to get right. I suggest this matter is taken to the article talk page to work through in the first instance with a consideration of the whole text and the place of images within it.
Ty 09:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I really dont like the colour of the title bar at the head of this template. Its too loud, too bright, and the same colour of the multitude of blue links that normally over populate wikipedia lead sections. I would suggest a more muted colour, a darkish green or brown, maybe. To my eye, the bar in Georges-Pierre Seurat is a bad clash. I'm not sure where to bring this up, so trying here. Thanks. Ceoil ( talk) 20:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted. The blue has been in place for a long time. It affects a lot of articles, and needs to be discussed and a consensus achieved for changing it. There is already previous discussion on Template talk:Infobox Artist, which is the best place to post. Ty 12:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Lots to do here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Cleanup listing... Modernist ( talk) 16:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, there is a contest against totally undiscussed cut-and-paste blanking/merging/splitting of East Asian calligraphy by Asoer ( talk · contribs). I don't see any active discussion on the edit, so there is naturally no consensus for that. Since it is pertinent to at least "four WikiProject", I'm drawing your attention to the article and hope you would give some useful input on the matter on Talk:East Asian calligraphy. Any active members who are interests in East Asian culture/art would be greatly helpful for the issue. Thanks.-- Caspian blue 03:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Input requested at Talk:Expressionism#deleted_Lyrical_Abstraction. Ty 23:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I respect your practice of the rules of Wikipedia and I hope that this experience will benefit us all. ( Salmon1 ( talk) 00:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC))
We are talking about having Lyrical Abstraction be represented in the article as part of Expressionism. According to the reference provided by Tyrenius- BNET Art Publications-concise Oxford Dictionary of Art and Artists, January, 2003 by Ian Chilver:
From the Tate definition:
The reference cited from the Tate is almost identical with that of Marilyn Stokstad, the British art historian: “Expressionism (is) the manipulation of formal or representational elements to convey intense feelings. [1] On the basis of the references cited, Lyrical Abstraction does not belong to the article of Expressionism. The discussed references should be added to the article. ( Salmon1 ( talk) 18:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC))
Please contribute your thoughts to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago/1 to discuss its recent delisting from WP:GA.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of Lyrical Abstraction from the article Expressionism
There is a strong opposition by some to the deletion of Lyrical Abstraction from the article, Expressionism. This has been expressed by successive reversion of Lyrical Abstraction to the article and a warning to block me from editing.
I would like to make the argument for the deletion as part of the process of working toward consensus.
There is a paragraph about Lyrical Abstraction that has been placed repeatedly in several Wikipedia articles:
Image caption: Ronnie Landfield, 1971, Lyrical Abstraction
The same paragraph is repeated in another topic:
Section: Washington Color School, Shaped Canvas, Abstract Illusionism, Lyrical Abstraction
Image caption: Ronnie Landfield, 1968, Lyrical Abstraction
Once again the same paragraph is repeated in another topic:
See also: Modern Art, Modernism, Contemporary art, Western painting, History of painting materials and new ways of expression.
Section: Shaped canvas, Washington Color School, Abstract Illusionism, Lyrical Abstraction
Image caption: Ronnie Landfield, 1971, Lyrical Abstraction
Indeed Lyrical Abstraction was associated with Color Field painting not with Expressionism:
Section: Color Field Movement
Image caption: Ronnie Landfield, Rite of Spring, 1985. Ronnie Landfield's work emerged during the 1960s. His works are reflections of both Chinese landscape painting and the Color Field idiom. His paintings bridge Color Field painting with Lyrical Abstraction. [5]
Section: In the 1960s after Abstract Expressionism
Section: Abstract painting and sculpture in the 1960s and 1970s.
Image caption: Ronnie Landfield, Garden of Delight, 1971, Lyrical Abstraction from the early 1970s
In order to consider the exclusion of Lyrical Abstraction from the article Expressionism one must consider the definition of Expressionism:
In the late 1939, at the beginning of World War II, New York welcomed a great number of leading European artists.
Relying on the definition of Expressionism and considering all the above repeated Wikipedia segments it should become evident that Lyrical Abstraction should not be part of Expressionism.
There is further consideration for its deletion from the article: Clement Greenberg’s Definition of Modernism according to Barbara Rose:
’’Similarly narrative (a literary device), figural representation, and certainly illusionism were strictly proscribed.’’
Argument for the deletion of Lyrical Abstraction, Tachisme.
The movement emphasized expressive paint handling. It evolved in direct response to American action painting.
For clarification according to the Webster’s New World Dictionary:
Expression: a picturing, representing, or symbolizing in art, music etc.
Expressionism: an early 20th century movement in art, literature, and drama, characterized by distortion of reality and the use of symbols, stylization, etc.
According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Art and Artists, 2003 © Ian Chilvers, the definition of Lyrical Abstraction:
A rather vague term, used differently by different writers, applied to a type of expressive but non-violent abstract painting flourishing particularly in the 1950s and 1960s; the term was evidently coined by the French painter George Mathieu who spoke of ‘abstraction lyrique’ in 1947. European critics often use it more or less as a synonym for Art informel or Tachisme; Americans sometimes see it as an emasculated version of Abstract Expressionism. To some writers it implies particularly a lush and sumptuous use of colour.’’
The above references provide the justification to delete Lyrical Abstraction from the article Expressionism.
I hope this argument will clarify my intention to serve the public with well researched, clearly referenced articles reflecting a Neutral Point of View. ( Salmon1 ( talk) 01:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC))
and added the definition of Expressionism. According to you:
Still the added definition was deleted (which I added again) and Lyrical Abstraction was reverted without explanation but a threat, "stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Each case should be looked at individually with the intention to reach consensus which is the power of Wikipedia. ( Salmon1 ( talk) 12:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC))
I found that the problem not only relates to the article Expressionism but more widely to many other articles. There is the use of the same text with repeated images by one single artist. WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. The proper understanding of the scope demands a fuller representation of the members of the group with verifiable references. Wikipedia:NPOV which is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. I hope we can make a difference in civility and the refinement of individual articles. ( Salmon1 ( talk) 03:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC))
NPOV is not punct game. The fact still remains that Wikipedia is the number one encyclopedia on the Web because of the rule of NPOV. I have no interest to participate in punct. I’ll continue to in Wikipedia.( Salmon1 ( talk) 18:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC))
FYI - I've tagged the article with your project. APK that's not my name 22:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
See the list in this category. We have The Last Supper (Leonardo) and two others using his first name, two using his full name, most, including less well known paintings, without any name. I certainly think that we shouldn't be using his first name (and those that do seem to use it within the article as well, which I think should be changed. Any comments? Dougweller ( talk) 08:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 03:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I am unable to find a source for File:Campbell's Soup with Can Opener.jpg, which means that this file is likely be be WP:CSDed next week.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 06:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
This may seem a very odd question (and sorry it's a little off-topic, I just know you all know your art!), but, other than Watson and the Shark, does anyone know of any works where sharks feature prominently? I'm working on Portal:Sharks, and would love for some more high culture articles in the "sharks in culture" list, and any high quality pictures for the selected picture would be fantastic! J Milburn ( talk) 18:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Just in case any of these have escaped you and are of any use: List_of_fictional_fish#Sharks, Category:Films about sharks, Category:Fictional sharks. And while we're on the subject. [23] Ty 00:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, all this was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for- I love Still life with Shark on the Bosporus; it's such a shame we have no articles on many of those works. J Milburn ( talk) 12:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:50, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
This is now working. Watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Article alerts to see when it is updated. The material on that page is currently transcluded onto the main project page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Article_alerts, but that can be prevented (I think), if it's felt that the info overloads the main page. See Wikipedia:Article alerts for more details. Ty 00:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the transclusion onto the main project page. Alerts can be found at:
Watchlist that page to see when it updates. Ty 08:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
This editor ObsessiveMathsFreak ( talk · contribs) is loading a bogus self-made image onto the Roy Lichtenstein article. I've reverted it twice and left remarks at the talk page, here [25] and would appreciate others input... Modernist ( talk) 16:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
These are no longer barred by MOS. [26] See preceding discussion, [27] with recommendation for layout to work on screens down to 800 pixels wide and up to 2000 pixels wide. Ty 05:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Not sure about Papier-mâché and Irezumi. I think not for the first and we could probably shed the second. Ty 13:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) I think you may be seeing these ratings as more important than they really are. They affect very little, apart from helping editors to see what needs improving. Also, there is far more work that needs to be done on wikipedia than there are editors to do it, so a lot of things are incomplete. It is a volunteer project. WikiProjects aren't sealed units. They are a useful focus for people of like interests. There is a lot to learn on wiki, so feel free to ask. Ty 10:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Finally! Its at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#Supports_and_opposes. I've been a big supporter of this, which was last extensively discussed in 2008 I think. I'm also curious as to what settings people use, & if anyone was unaware they could set preferences. I've set 300px as default, what about other people? Johnbod ( talk) 12:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Cleanup is required across a number of articles. Details are at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Advertising by Alexander Gray Associates. Uncle G ( talk) 23:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
See Alexandergray ( talk · contribs). Ty 01:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Lovely work by an American painter, born 1870. Deserves an article. See http://www.arbrewster.com/ -- an article would link to A New Alice in the Old Wonderland which she illustrated for her mother in 1895. -- Evertype· ✆ 08:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I've made an AfD nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonardo Da Vinci: Flights of the Mind – a biography of Leonardo. I'd be grateful for your opinions. Ham 16:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The text here The Allegory of Faith taken from here: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/verm/ho_32.100.18.htm [28]seems far too close for comfort to me. See the discussion here: [29] others opinions appreciated. Thanks... Modernist ( talk) 01:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Can someone clarify the rules regarding images?
Is there also some kind of rule regarding the death date of the artist?
Any other simplified rules regarding uploading images would be appreciated. 66.92.38.202 ( talk) 16:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Attention is needed at Will Barnet, where an editor and several allies or sockpuppets are determined to alert the world that Barnet's success was gained by stealing ideas from said editor. Ewulp ( talk) 11:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Problems with the images atop Howard Pyle and J.C. Leyendecker; they are over-enlarged, and I don't know how to correct them. I wonder if someone has messed with images at other illustrators' bios as well. Any help would be appreciated. JNW ( talk) 22:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Image problem at The Disasters of War re: the Dali, which is also eluding my comprehension (hmmm). When I try to restore the image, it appears just fine in the edit preview, but the corrections don't take when I press 'save'. I don't know if it's a related issue, or an anomaly, but a helpful hand would be appreciated again. JNW ( talk) 13:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted back to a stable version with consensus. See Template_talk:Infobox_artist#Recent_changes. Please make sure this template is watchlisted and join in the discussions there, and revert any unilateral template changes. Ty 19:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Outside views would be helpful at Talk:Stella_Vine#An_Encyclopedia.2C_not_a_Magazine concerning the reduction of (free) images in the article from 19 to 4. [31] I have reverted the change. Ty 19:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Any outside perspectives on The Secret Life of Salvador Dalí would be great. I just created the article and I'm sure I made some mistakes and neglected some things that another editor would see. Thanks! The Squicks ( talk) 05:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a growing disagreement here: [32]concerning changing the criteria at list of Contemporary artists, comments appreciated... Modernist ( talk) 23:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#Non-free_images_in_a_gallery, from discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Reverted_change_on_galleries after reversion of a recent change. [33] Ty 00:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Following a discussion at WP:COI about museums/libraries/archives, we thought it would be good to have a place to discuss issues relevant to, and give specific advice for, professionals in the cultural sector working on Wikipedia. This will probably become WP:MLA and it is currently under development here: User:Witty_lama/Sandbox (and equivalent talkpage). It's not supposed to be a policy page itself, but rather a "one stop shop" for professional archivists, museum professionals, librarians to come and see all the policies/guidelines that apply to them and get advice and assistance. That said, we just started discussing a possible subject specific notability criteria for MLAs as well. UncleDouggie ( talk) 01:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the default size for images is moving from 180px to 220px [34]... Modernist ( talk) 02:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I am preparing List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings) for WP:FLC and am looking for people with an interest in Japanese painting to help in this process. Besides boring work (conversion of units, alt-text of pictures,...), the lead section of the list needs to be improved and extended. Most logical would be a historical introduction as in (the already featured) List of National Treasures of Japan (sculptures), but any other ideas are welcome. bamse ( talk) 14:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
This has now been around a good while, & seems pretty stable, but remains a draft proposal. Unless there are any objections in the next few days, I will remove the draft header & make it "official". Of course much could still be added. Johnbod ( talk) 13:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I uploaded some images of art works exhibited at Victoria and Albert Museum. I can only detect very a few of them by searching in VAM website, but I don't know how to call the listed objects in the gallery in English.
Your help would be highly appreciated. Thanks.-- Caspian blue 15:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not in the mood for an edit war, but it seems an IP is determined to start one. This is all around a certain artist, Terry Ananny. Her remarkable story of long-term abuse (she's known as The Terry Ananny Spammer--there's some notability for you!) can be found here. In short, it has long been decided that she is not notable by Wikipedia standards, but every couple of months she pops in and puts her name in the List of Canadian artists and List of Canadian painters, plus a few others. I've reverted twice, plus a bot has reverted her "reference" from youtube. I'm frankly tired of this. freshacconci talktalk 19:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Please keep an eye on ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs, and perhaps others, who are in effect spamming the very horrible paintings of the 19th century Danish painter Bloch, who is now apparently very highly thought of by LDS (Mormon) people. Flash is also making a number of picture changes, no doubt with good intentions, to the lead images of other religious articles, previously illustrated with "blurry" paintings. If it isn't Bloch, its Guido Reni or Murillo. Some are improvements, others not Johnbod ( talk) 00:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
In this article some of the reference notes are more like lectures, and I suspect there is some POV going on with the disputes mentioned, using the fact that the information is in the notes not the article as a sort of Trojan Horse. Would someone who knows more about this than I do put any relevant text into the body of tha article and reduce the notes to the refereces to sources that I think they are meant to be? Britmax ( talk) 09:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I nominated this for speedy deletion, which was declined. It is an autobiography without any sources, heavy on the original research, and I'm unclear re: notability. Thoughts welcome. JNW ( talk) 20:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
How is the height of a statue measured for official statistical purposes: is the base included? See for example Iron Man (statue) listed as the third tallest statue in the United States, while the guy on top is only 36 feet tall. He would be last on this list (if included at all) if the base is omitted. kelapstick ( talk) 21:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
following up on a message left here a week or so ago, the new page giving specialised advice to professionals from the cultural sector (including those in the visual arts e.g. public art-gallery curators) page is now published at Wikipedia:advice for the cultural sector (aka WP:GLAM. Feel free to comment. It refers out to this wikiproject several times so some people may come across. Perhaps you might like to refer out to it from here too? Sincerely Witty Lama 15:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Numerous edits adding references to crop art, and one practitioner in particular, [35], sometimes inappropriate, sometimes appears promotional; good example of both is [36]. I've reverted some, and would appreciate more input. 99.149.84.135 ( talk) 15:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone here think there's anything articleworthy to Eric Van Hove? I'd never heard of him, but a link led me to his article, which I thought full of flimflam (sourcing to himself), unsupported statements, and bullshit. After my runthrough it's not quite as awful as it was, but my attempts to read the few putatively independent sources that are quoted are thwarted as my eyes glaze over in the face of congealed gradstudent-speak about Art (capital "A"). -- Hoary ( talk) 02:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I just came across this new Wikiproject which appears to be a bunch of students from
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis who are adding articles about the public art on the campus. They are doing OK but might benefit from some assistance and a few expert eyes on the output. I've left them a message on their talk page welcoming them and giving them a few style tips but I'm no art expert so can't help them with how to approach the content. Kind regards,
Nancy
talk 10:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Nancy, for posting this here. We had listed this project as a parent project, but I think forgot to leave a note here about our project.
We'd love to have more folks opinions and help. However, for the sake of the project, I wonder if everyone would be willing to wait until after today at 6pm to make significant edits to the pages. As part of their final project the students are to have 2 articles each finished, thus completing a first-ever survey of the IUPUI campus collection. We're really excited about this project and the potential it has. It seems that many of these new Wikipedians have had mixed results interacting with editors--some have been very kind and helpful (like Nancy!) while others have not.
Kind regards -- -- Richard McCoy ( talk) 12:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Anyone interested in trying to help put together a few books on the visual arts? Given that it is my primary area of activity, I would think some books on religious art in particular would be very useful, but books on sculpture, painting, etc., if they don't exist already, would doubtless be very useful as well. If (that's a very big if in this case, as I've never done any myself) I could be of any assistance in this regard, please let me know and I'll see what I can do. John Carter ( talk) 16:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
please make a shades of black page, like the other shades of color pages? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.244.2 ( talk) 16:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Given the guy's current controversy, could someone keep an eye on this article? There's a lot of partisan-looking activity going on there. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 21:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Recurring issue, persistent promotion by/of non-notable artist. JNW ( talk) 04:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello there, I am from the Simple English Wikipedia. That Wikipedia wants to create an encyclopedia that uses English, which should be easier to understand than this Wikipedia. Because of various issues, we do have a bad image here. The reason I write this message is that we are lacking many articles about painters which most would consider "mainstream" modern-day.At the time of this writing, we do not have much of an article about Impressionism, and we lack Degas, Cézanne and Renoir. We currently are a small community, and lack the people with the respective skills. I would therefore like to invite anyone to help us. Sorry, if I posted this to the wrong place. Thanks. -- Eptalon ( talk) 22:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi all. I see both Sculpture and Outline of sculpture mention "dynamic textures", but I'm not sure what that is. As it stands, "dynamic" and "texture" are separately linked, but I need to fix the link to disambig page Dynamic. Does anyone know what these articles should really point to? Thanks, -- JaGa talk 02:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Will someone please take a look at German art just before the Third Reich and the associated talk page? This looks like it is gearing up to be a long and pointless argument. Litho derm 23:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Does a drawing of a person, or the fact that one might be drawn, mean all non-free photos of people are thus replaceable?. Ty 01:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd like my article Shadowgraphy to be reviewed please for classification.
JeremeK ( talk) 08:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
There's a planned press release from at least two Wikimedia chapters (UK and Sweden) for an upcoming image donation from the Mary Rose Trust scheduled for January 3. It's going to be accompanied by a major update of the articles on the Mary Rose and the Anthony Roll which are going to be nominated as DYK for the day of the press release. If anyone here is interested in joining in to make that day into a naval/Tudor period theme day for DYK, check out Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Scheduling a DYK date.
Peter Isotalo 10:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI, the signature field was added back to the template. Best regards. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate other editors input and opinions concerning artist signatures in articles, please weigh in here: [37] at Talk:Vincent van Gogh... Modernist ( talk) 22:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I re-nominated List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings) at FLC. A previous nomination failed (with one "support" and no "oppose") because of a lack of reviews. All comments of that nomination have been addressed and the list has virtually not changed since then. I am looking for reviewers to comment on the list with regard to the featured list criteria. Pleas leave your comments/votes here. Thanks. bamse ( talk) 09:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I am surprised that when ever impressionism is mentioned it is attributed solely to Paris as the cradle of this style of painting. If one were to do a little more study I am convinced that in fact impressionism as it evolved in Paris was probably largely influenced or inspired by the paintings of Turner and his impact on painting with his studies of the effects of light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.71.32 ( talk) 14:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Airbrush is the same as Aerograph although this is the original brandname of Devillbiss. An airbrush is best suited to very detailed fine spray work such as graphics; it works from a small compressor; the flow rate of paint is very small so it is not suited to painting large areas. For larger areas where a litre of paint or less is to be applied, HVLP is usually used. This is an air spray gun in which a High Volume of Low Pressure air is used; it is similar to the older type of "conventional" air spray gun that is relatively inefficient in transferring the paint to the work (less than 30% transfer). HVLP equipment is often used by joiners and shopfitters, and can be powered from a compressor having at least 12 cfm of delivered air, or from a mutli-stage air turbine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Dundas ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I have an outline ready for the topic of freelance design; which I was surprised isn't already up. I am looking for other professional in the field of design (graphic, web, illustration, photography) who know of the subject first-hand OR someone who is simply a great copy-editor and can help with formatting, etc. It's going to be a substantial amount of information. If you're interested, please drop me a line here. I watch this page daily and will definately see your message. Hope to hear from someone out there! Thanks! -- Neon Sky ( talk) 04:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Template:BranchesofVisualArt has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 04:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I've put up Anthony Roll for a peer review. The Roll is a list of warships, but also contains a series of rather unique illustrations that are discussed at some length in the article. If anyone from the project would be interested in looking at them, I'd be glad to listen to your comments and recommendations.
Peter Isotalo 08:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Reported at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mike_Kelley_(artist). Ty 12:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion here about the Art history article. Some input would be welcome. freshacconci talktalk 13:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I stumbled on this article while patrolling new pages and would have nominated it for Speedy delete as it failed to assert notability ("six year old, talented artist... yeah, sure he is...")
A quick knock around with Google and it's apparent he's somewhat different from the other 145 six-year-old artists whose biographies have been deleted this week and is very notable indeed.
I'm not the best equipped to improve this article and the newspaper articles I've found, while being reliable sources for the media interest he's attracted, might not be particularly objective in terms of describing the art. I'd appreciate it if someone else could add to the article. Thanks Catfish Jim and the soapdish ( talk) 11:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone have any information regarding this artist? I have come across 8 small paintings w/her name and address (U.K.) typed and glued on the back of the paintings. Skinner's auction house of Boston did not seem to think they could auction them. Any ideas of value and market would be greatly appreciated. I'm thinking Australia would be a good marketing location. Thank you in advance. contact: Donna foorcoolcats15@msn.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.19.156 ( talk) 17:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that there are two articles that deal with the same subject: Cosmati and Cosmatesque. It might be best to merge them. Commons seems to have enough to make an image gallery, which I could add later. 173.52.187.133 ( talk) 19:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
This article needs work, help and a new name...see talk here: [1]
I think it can turn into an interesting article... Modernist ( talk) 12:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed Romaine Brooks for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found an image issue, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. The issue should not be too difficult to address. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 17:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
This thread looks serious enough to be paid attention to... [2]... Modernist ( talk) 12:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:
-- Mr. Z-man 00:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Could do with some input. I don't have much time right now. See article talk page. Ty 02:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
A new feature on Google image search allows a parameter for free images in the advanced search option. [4] That doesn't mean they are free, just that they have been tagged by someone as such. I found one copyvio immediately. Ty 02:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
What is the point of hassling this image? Is the threat to delete this image really necessary? -
given that it is it is from the middle ages and its in the pd I don't understand this...I understand the tag says it needs a source - but for what reason? WP:UCS says let it be... Modernist ( talk) 02:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
NFC image issues need to be addressed. See Talk:Western_painting#Number_of_images. Ty 12:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of this article and dues to the number of concerns raised, I have de-listed it. Review at Talk:Canaletto/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 13:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a GA Sweeps reassessment of this article and found a large number of concerns which can be see ay Talk:Caravaggio/GA1. The article has been de-listed, but can be brought back to WP:GAN when these have been addressed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 15:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Please weigh in your opinion here: [6]... Modernist ( talk) 13:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Has a number of sentences with no sources which may be POV. Other editors opinions needed please. [ [7]]-- Kbob ( talk) 02:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Opinions requested at Talk:Art_Renewal_Center#Vallen's_opinion. Ty 00:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you could help settle a dating/authorship issue on the file concerned.
It mentions it's a Baxter print, but also mentions another indivdual (in whose books the print may have appeared). The date of 1880 also seems outside the lifetime of THE George Baxter.
Thanks in advance. :)
Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 00:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The Joanne Gair has a {{ non free}} tag and the talk page has a section discussing this issue. Commentary is welcome.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 01:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up - I came across this article and tagged it with your project. APK that's not my name 19:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.
The Transhumanist 23:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Any input would be appreciated, although I think this is a rather straightforward merge proposal. freshacconci talktalk 11:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a question about this artists notability. Charles James Martin (artist) appreciate any opinions as to whether or not this is a legitimately notable inclusion... Modernist ( talk) 20:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring by another editor who is reverting my NPOV edits, blanking out talk page comments and general incivility. freshacconci talktalk 14:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
...copied from the Arts project talk. This page is really terrible. Johnbod ( talk) 03:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, here's a relevant discussion about subject development you might find interesting.
The Transhumanist 00:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I would appreciate other opinions concerning his inclusion at Impressionism - discussion is here: [12]... Modernist ( talk) 14:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Just an FYI, this article had a proposed deletion template on it but the photographer is notable and there's a reasonable amount of coverage of the exhibition through critical reviews. The article has been around for years as a one-sentence stub and probably deserves improvement. I tagged it with your project in case someone wants to take a look at it, thanks! -- Atama chat 21:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I have done a GA Reassessment of The Battle of Alexander at Issus as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to nearly meet the current GA Criteria. I did see a couple of issues that cause me to not immediately keep the article at GA. I have placed it on hold for a week pending work. My review can be found here. I am notifying all interested projects and editors in the hopes that work can be done. Should you have questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles ( talk) 20:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Please visit Talk:Portrait painting#profile, half-turn, three-quarter, or full face! Thx! -- Diwas ( talk) 19:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
A new editor User:Artshoworganizer, a probable sock of User:Cramyourspam (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Ward), is creating some WP:POINTy AFD noms to some articles I created, plus a few others (including Matthew Barney). It looks like he didn't properly nominate them, just stuck the template at the top, but I'm not sure if I can just revert these or not. Anyone know if this is just a matter of reverting as vandalism? freshacconci talktalk 03:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm not making this up. History of painting See for yourself. I can't imagine why we need more than 400 images to convey ANY subject in an encyclopedic way. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there are far too many images, even for a subject where images are central (which they are not for WWII). It also makes the page slow to open. However, a restriction of one per section is just going to the other extreme. WP:SUMMARY is the way forward, and the images have been selected, so it will be relatively easy to move them to dedicated articles in due course. In terms of length, there is a featured article, Intelligent design with 178 kB at number 104 on Special:Longpages. [13] A significant problem is the small number of editors on wikipedia with sufficient knowledge and interest to edit art articles. This article is a work in progress, not a finished product. Of rather more concern than the number of images is the disproportionate space given to Western painting, in particular the 20th century, which currently occupies half the article. I find it anomalous that in an assessment of the article, this point has not been raised, and the focus is all on the images. Surely the overall structure is more important, and necessary to establish before the images can be properly assessed in detail. Ty 22:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) I have concerns about your approach on this page to this issue. You have come to a good place to raise it, and you are welcome here to do so. I agree with you that there is a matter to be addressed. It is an important article, currently no. 172 in Visual Arts pages with over 18,000 views a month. [14] It is also a complex subject that requires careful attention from editors who know what they're doing, and these are thin on the ground. As the posts above show, it is something that requires diplomatic handling.
You have introduced the matter in an aggressive way with "shouting" in the heading and your initial post. Per Wikipedia:TPG#Good_practices:
Please note: "It undermines a reasoned argument with the appearance of force". This is something then compounded by your use of bullet points, despite not even starting the thread with that format and it not being used by others in the first five posts. It gives the impression that you think your posts merit a special mark to give them more significance than posts by other editors. As you have said, others in the past have also objected to this practice. If you continue, then consistency forces other editors to follow that format, which technically is not as flexible for these threaded posts.
You have come here to ask for a collegiate response in the application of a guideline, yet ignore the content of another guideline yourself, and present yourself in a manner which is likely simply alienate other editors. J Milburn, who you know well as another editor like yourself with a particular interest in NFC issues, has worked very successfully with here, as can be seen directly above at #Grant Wood:
Editors here are prepared to work on these issues, but merit respect and also an appreciation of the difficulties with the small number of editors available, some of whom are working on a FA at the moment.
This issue needs considered dialogue. It is not just about the images, but about the article as a whole. It is not going to be resolved properly overnight, and requires slow careful work to get right. I suggest this matter is taken to the article talk page to work through in the first instance with a consideration of the whole text and the place of images within it.
Ty 09:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I really dont like the colour of the title bar at the head of this template. Its too loud, too bright, and the same colour of the multitude of blue links that normally over populate wikipedia lead sections. I would suggest a more muted colour, a darkish green or brown, maybe. To my eye, the bar in Georges-Pierre Seurat is a bad clash. I'm not sure where to bring this up, so trying here. Thanks. Ceoil ( talk) 20:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted. The blue has been in place for a long time. It affects a lot of articles, and needs to be discussed and a consensus achieved for changing it. There is already previous discussion on Template talk:Infobox Artist, which is the best place to post. Ty 12:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Lots to do here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Cleanup listing... Modernist ( talk) 16:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, there is a contest against totally undiscussed cut-and-paste blanking/merging/splitting of East Asian calligraphy by Asoer ( talk · contribs). I don't see any active discussion on the edit, so there is naturally no consensus for that. Since it is pertinent to at least "four WikiProject", I'm drawing your attention to the article and hope you would give some useful input on the matter on Talk:East Asian calligraphy. Any active members who are interests in East Asian culture/art would be greatly helpful for the issue. Thanks.-- Caspian blue 03:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Input requested at Talk:Expressionism#deleted_Lyrical_Abstraction. Ty 23:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I respect your practice of the rules of Wikipedia and I hope that this experience will benefit us all. ( Salmon1 ( talk) 00:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC))
We are talking about having Lyrical Abstraction be represented in the article as part of Expressionism. According to the reference provided by Tyrenius- BNET Art Publications-concise Oxford Dictionary of Art and Artists, January, 2003 by Ian Chilver:
From the Tate definition:
The reference cited from the Tate is almost identical with that of Marilyn Stokstad, the British art historian: “Expressionism (is) the manipulation of formal or representational elements to convey intense feelings. [1] On the basis of the references cited, Lyrical Abstraction does not belong to the article of Expressionism. The discussed references should be added to the article. ( Salmon1 ( talk) 18:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC))
Please contribute your thoughts to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago/1 to discuss its recent delisting from WP:GA.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of Lyrical Abstraction from the article Expressionism
There is a strong opposition by some to the deletion of Lyrical Abstraction from the article, Expressionism. This has been expressed by successive reversion of Lyrical Abstraction to the article and a warning to block me from editing.
I would like to make the argument for the deletion as part of the process of working toward consensus.
There is a paragraph about Lyrical Abstraction that has been placed repeatedly in several Wikipedia articles:
Image caption: Ronnie Landfield, 1971, Lyrical Abstraction
The same paragraph is repeated in another topic:
Section: Washington Color School, Shaped Canvas, Abstract Illusionism, Lyrical Abstraction
Image caption: Ronnie Landfield, 1968, Lyrical Abstraction
Once again the same paragraph is repeated in another topic:
See also: Modern Art, Modernism, Contemporary art, Western painting, History of painting materials and new ways of expression.
Section: Shaped canvas, Washington Color School, Abstract Illusionism, Lyrical Abstraction
Image caption: Ronnie Landfield, 1971, Lyrical Abstraction
Indeed Lyrical Abstraction was associated with Color Field painting not with Expressionism:
Section: Color Field Movement
Image caption: Ronnie Landfield, Rite of Spring, 1985. Ronnie Landfield's work emerged during the 1960s. His works are reflections of both Chinese landscape painting and the Color Field idiom. His paintings bridge Color Field painting with Lyrical Abstraction. [5]
Section: In the 1960s after Abstract Expressionism
Section: Abstract painting and sculpture in the 1960s and 1970s.
Image caption: Ronnie Landfield, Garden of Delight, 1971, Lyrical Abstraction from the early 1970s
In order to consider the exclusion of Lyrical Abstraction from the article Expressionism one must consider the definition of Expressionism:
In the late 1939, at the beginning of World War II, New York welcomed a great number of leading European artists.
Relying on the definition of Expressionism and considering all the above repeated Wikipedia segments it should become evident that Lyrical Abstraction should not be part of Expressionism.
There is further consideration for its deletion from the article: Clement Greenberg’s Definition of Modernism according to Barbara Rose:
’’Similarly narrative (a literary device), figural representation, and certainly illusionism were strictly proscribed.’’
Argument for the deletion of Lyrical Abstraction, Tachisme.
The movement emphasized expressive paint handling. It evolved in direct response to American action painting.
For clarification according to the Webster’s New World Dictionary:
Expression: a picturing, representing, or symbolizing in art, music etc.
Expressionism: an early 20th century movement in art, literature, and drama, characterized by distortion of reality and the use of symbols, stylization, etc.
According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Art and Artists, 2003 © Ian Chilvers, the definition of Lyrical Abstraction:
A rather vague term, used differently by different writers, applied to a type of expressive but non-violent abstract painting flourishing particularly in the 1950s and 1960s; the term was evidently coined by the French painter George Mathieu who spoke of ‘abstraction lyrique’ in 1947. European critics often use it more or less as a synonym for Art informel or Tachisme; Americans sometimes see it as an emasculated version of Abstract Expressionism. To some writers it implies particularly a lush and sumptuous use of colour.’’
The above references provide the justification to delete Lyrical Abstraction from the article Expressionism.
I hope this argument will clarify my intention to serve the public with well researched, clearly referenced articles reflecting a Neutral Point of View. ( Salmon1 ( talk) 01:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC))
and added the definition of Expressionism. According to you:
Still the added definition was deleted (which I added again) and Lyrical Abstraction was reverted without explanation but a threat, "stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Each case should be looked at individually with the intention to reach consensus which is the power of Wikipedia. ( Salmon1 ( talk) 12:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC))
I found that the problem not only relates to the article Expressionism but more widely to many other articles. There is the use of the same text with repeated images by one single artist. WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. The proper understanding of the scope demands a fuller representation of the members of the group with verifiable references. Wikipedia:NPOV which is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. I hope we can make a difference in civility and the refinement of individual articles. ( Salmon1 ( talk) 03:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC))
NPOV is not punct game. The fact still remains that Wikipedia is the number one encyclopedia on the Web because of the rule of NPOV. I have no interest to participate in punct. I’ll continue to in Wikipedia.( Salmon1 ( talk) 18:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC))
FYI - I've tagged the article with your project. APK that's not my name 22:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
See the list in this category. We have The Last Supper (Leonardo) and two others using his first name, two using his full name, most, including less well known paintings, without any name. I certainly think that we shouldn't be using his first name (and those that do seem to use it within the article as well, which I think should be changed. Any comments? Dougweller ( talk) 08:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 03:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I am unable to find a source for File:Campbell's Soup with Can Opener.jpg, which means that this file is likely be be WP:CSDed next week.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 06:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
This may seem a very odd question (and sorry it's a little off-topic, I just know you all know your art!), but, other than Watson and the Shark, does anyone know of any works where sharks feature prominently? I'm working on Portal:Sharks, and would love for some more high culture articles in the "sharks in culture" list, and any high quality pictures for the selected picture would be fantastic! J Milburn ( talk) 18:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Just in case any of these have escaped you and are of any use: List_of_fictional_fish#Sharks, Category:Films about sharks, Category:Fictional sharks. And while we're on the subject. [23] Ty 00:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, all this was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for- I love Still life with Shark on the Bosporus; it's such a shame we have no articles on many of those works. J Milburn ( talk) 12:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:50, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
This is now working. Watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Article alerts to see when it is updated. The material on that page is currently transcluded onto the main project page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Article_alerts, but that can be prevented (I think), if it's felt that the info overloads the main page. See Wikipedia:Article alerts for more details. Ty 00:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the transclusion onto the main project page. Alerts can be found at:
Watchlist that page to see when it updates. Ty 08:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
This editor ObsessiveMathsFreak ( talk · contribs) is loading a bogus self-made image onto the Roy Lichtenstein article. I've reverted it twice and left remarks at the talk page, here [25] and would appreciate others input... Modernist ( talk) 16:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
These are no longer barred by MOS. [26] See preceding discussion, [27] with recommendation for layout to work on screens down to 800 pixels wide and up to 2000 pixels wide. Ty 05:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Not sure about Papier-mâché and Irezumi. I think not for the first and we could probably shed the second. Ty 13:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) I think you may be seeing these ratings as more important than they really are. They affect very little, apart from helping editors to see what needs improving. Also, there is far more work that needs to be done on wikipedia than there are editors to do it, so a lot of things are incomplete. It is a volunteer project. WikiProjects aren't sealed units. They are a useful focus for people of like interests. There is a lot to learn on wiki, so feel free to ask. Ty 10:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Finally! Its at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#Supports_and_opposes. I've been a big supporter of this, which was last extensively discussed in 2008 I think. I'm also curious as to what settings people use, & if anyone was unaware they could set preferences. I've set 300px as default, what about other people? Johnbod ( talk) 12:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Cleanup is required across a number of articles. Details are at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Advertising by Alexander Gray Associates. Uncle G ( talk) 23:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
See Alexandergray ( talk · contribs). Ty 01:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Lovely work by an American painter, born 1870. Deserves an article. See http://www.arbrewster.com/ -- an article would link to A New Alice in the Old Wonderland which she illustrated for her mother in 1895. -- Evertype· ✆ 08:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I've made an AfD nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonardo Da Vinci: Flights of the Mind – a biography of Leonardo. I'd be grateful for your opinions. Ham 16:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The text here The Allegory of Faith taken from here: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/verm/ho_32.100.18.htm [28]seems far too close for comfort to me. See the discussion here: [29] others opinions appreciated. Thanks... Modernist ( talk) 01:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Can someone clarify the rules regarding images?
Is there also some kind of rule regarding the death date of the artist?
Any other simplified rules regarding uploading images would be appreciated. 66.92.38.202 ( talk) 16:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Attention is needed at Will Barnet, where an editor and several allies or sockpuppets are determined to alert the world that Barnet's success was gained by stealing ideas from said editor. Ewulp ( talk) 11:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Problems with the images atop Howard Pyle and J.C. Leyendecker; they are over-enlarged, and I don't know how to correct them. I wonder if someone has messed with images at other illustrators' bios as well. Any help would be appreciated. JNW ( talk) 22:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Image problem at The Disasters of War re: the Dali, which is also eluding my comprehension (hmmm). When I try to restore the image, it appears just fine in the edit preview, but the corrections don't take when I press 'save'. I don't know if it's a related issue, or an anomaly, but a helpful hand would be appreciated again. JNW ( talk) 13:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted back to a stable version with consensus. See Template_talk:Infobox_artist#Recent_changes. Please make sure this template is watchlisted and join in the discussions there, and revert any unilateral template changes. Ty 19:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Outside views would be helpful at Talk:Stella_Vine#An_Encyclopedia.2C_not_a_Magazine concerning the reduction of (free) images in the article from 19 to 4. [31] I have reverted the change. Ty 19:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Any outside perspectives on The Secret Life of Salvador Dalí would be great. I just created the article and I'm sure I made some mistakes and neglected some things that another editor would see. Thanks! The Squicks ( talk) 05:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a growing disagreement here: [32]concerning changing the criteria at list of Contemporary artists, comments appreciated... Modernist ( talk) 23:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#Non-free_images_in_a_gallery, from discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Reverted_change_on_galleries after reversion of a recent change. [33] Ty 00:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Following a discussion at WP:COI about museums/libraries/archives, we thought it would be good to have a place to discuss issues relevant to, and give specific advice for, professionals in the cultural sector working on Wikipedia. This will probably become WP:MLA and it is currently under development here: User:Witty_lama/Sandbox (and equivalent talkpage). It's not supposed to be a policy page itself, but rather a "one stop shop" for professional archivists, museum professionals, librarians to come and see all the policies/guidelines that apply to them and get advice and assistance. That said, we just started discussing a possible subject specific notability criteria for MLAs as well. UncleDouggie ( talk) 01:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the default size for images is moving from 180px to 220px [34]... Modernist ( talk) 02:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I am preparing List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings) for WP:FLC and am looking for people with an interest in Japanese painting to help in this process. Besides boring work (conversion of units, alt-text of pictures,...), the lead section of the list needs to be improved and extended. Most logical would be a historical introduction as in (the already featured) List of National Treasures of Japan (sculptures), but any other ideas are welcome. bamse ( talk) 14:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
This has now been around a good while, & seems pretty stable, but remains a draft proposal. Unless there are any objections in the next few days, I will remove the draft header & make it "official". Of course much could still be added. Johnbod ( talk) 13:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I uploaded some images of art works exhibited at Victoria and Albert Museum. I can only detect very a few of them by searching in VAM website, but I don't know how to call the listed objects in the gallery in English.
Your help would be highly appreciated. Thanks.-- Caspian blue 15:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not in the mood for an edit war, but it seems an IP is determined to start one. This is all around a certain artist, Terry Ananny. Her remarkable story of long-term abuse (she's known as The Terry Ananny Spammer--there's some notability for you!) can be found here. In short, it has long been decided that she is not notable by Wikipedia standards, but every couple of months she pops in and puts her name in the List of Canadian artists and List of Canadian painters, plus a few others. I've reverted twice, plus a bot has reverted her "reference" from youtube. I'm frankly tired of this. freshacconci talktalk 19:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Please keep an eye on ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs, and perhaps others, who are in effect spamming the very horrible paintings of the 19th century Danish painter Bloch, who is now apparently very highly thought of by LDS (Mormon) people. Flash is also making a number of picture changes, no doubt with good intentions, to the lead images of other religious articles, previously illustrated with "blurry" paintings. If it isn't Bloch, its Guido Reni or Murillo. Some are improvements, others not Johnbod ( talk) 00:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
In this article some of the reference notes are more like lectures, and I suspect there is some POV going on with the disputes mentioned, using the fact that the information is in the notes not the article as a sort of Trojan Horse. Would someone who knows more about this than I do put any relevant text into the body of tha article and reduce the notes to the refereces to sources that I think they are meant to be? Britmax ( talk) 09:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I nominated this for speedy deletion, which was declined. It is an autobiography without any sources, heavy on the original research, and I'm unclear re: notability. Thoughts welcome. JNW ( talk) 20:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
How is the height of a statue measured for official statistical purposes: is the base included? See for example Iron Man (statue) listed as the third tallest statue in the United States, while the guy on top is only 36 feet tall. He would be last on this list (if included at all) if the base is omitted. kelapstick ( talk) 21:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
following up on a message left here a week or so ago, the new page giving specialised advice to professionals from the cultural sector (including those in the visual arts e.g. public art-gallery curators) page is now published at Wikipedia:advice for the cultural sector (aka WP:GLAM. Feel free to comment. It refers out to this wikiproject several times so some people may come across. Perhaps you might like to refer out to it from here too? Sincerely Witty Lama 15:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Numerous edits adding references to crop art, and one practitioner in particular, [35], sometimes inappropriate, sometimes appears promotional; good example of both is [36]. I've reverted some, and would appreciate more input. 99.149.84.135 ( talk) 15:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone here think there's anything articleworthy to Eric Van Hove? I'd never heard of him, but a link led me to his article, which I thought full of flimflam (sourcing to himself), unsupported statements, and bullshit. After my runthrough it's not quite as awful as it was, but my attempts to read the few putatively independent sources that are quoted are thwarted as my eyes glaze over in the face of congealed gradstudent-speak about Art (capital "A"). -- Hoary ( talk) 02:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I just came across this new Wikiproject which appears to be a bunch of students from
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis who are adding articles about the public art on the campus. They are doing OK but might benefit from some assistance and a few expert eyes on the output. I've left them a message on their talk page welcoming them and giving them a few style tips but I'm no art expert so can't help them with how to approach the content. Kind regards,
Nancy
talk 10:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Nancy, for posting this here. We had listed this project as a parent project, but I think forgot to leave a note here about our project.
We'd love to have more folks opinions and help. However, for the sake of the project, I wonder if everyone would be willing to wait until after today at 6pm to make significant edits to the pages. As part of their final project the students are to have 2 articles each finished, thus completing a first-ever survey of the IUPUI campus collection. We're really excited about this project and the potential it has. It seems that many of these new Wikipedians have had mixed results interacting with editors--some have been very kind and helpful (like Nancy!) while others have not.
Kind regards -- -- Richard McCoy ( talk) 12:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Anyone interested in trying to help put together a few books on the visual arts? Given that it is my primary area of activity, I would think some books on religious art in particular would be very useful, but books on sculpture, painting, etc., if they don't exist already, would doubtless be very useful as well. If (that's a very big if in this case, as I've never done any myself) I could be of any assistance in this regard, please let me know and I'll see what I can do. John Carter ( talk) 16:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
please make a shades of black page, like the other shades of color pages? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.244.2 ( talk) 16:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Given the guy's current controversy, could someone keep an eye on this article? There's a lot of partisan-looking activity going on there. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 21:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Recurring issue, persistent promotion by/of non-notable artist. JNW ( talk) 04:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello there, I am from the Simple English Wikipedia. That Wikipedia wants to create an encyclopedia that uses English, which should be easier to understand than this Wikipedia. Because of various issues, we do have a bad image here. The reason I write this message is that we are lacking many articles about painters which most would consider "mainstream" modern-day.At the time of this writing, we do not have much of an article about Impressionism, and we lack Degas, Cézanne and Renoir. We currently are a small community, and lack the people with the respective skills. I would therefore like to invite anyone to help us. Sorry, if I posted this to the wrong place. Thanks. -- Eptalon ( talk) 22:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi all. I see both Sculpture and Outline of sculpture mention "dynamic textures", but I'm not sure what that is. As it stands, "dynamic" and "texture" are separately linked, but I need to fix the link to disambig page Dynamic. Does anyone know what these articles should really point to? Thanks, -- JaGa talk 02:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Will someone please take a look at German art just before the Third Reich and the associated talk page? This looks like it is gearing up to be a long and pointless argument. Litho derm 23:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Does a drawing of a person, or the fact that one might be drawn, mean all non-free photos of people are thus replaceable?. Ty 01:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd like my article Shadowgraphy to be reviewed please for classification.
JeremeK ( talk) 08:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
There's a planned press release from at least two Wikimedia chapters (UK and Sweden) for an upcoming image donation from the Mary Rose Trust scheduled for January 3. It's going to be accompanied by a major update of the articles on the Mary Rose and the Anthony Roll which are going to be nominated as DYK for the day of the press release. If anyone here is interested in joining in to make that day into a naval/Tudor period theme day for DYK, check out Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Scheduling a DYK date.
Peter Isotalo 10:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI, the signature field was added back to the template. Best regards. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate other editors input and opinions concerning artist signatures in articles, please weigh in here: [37] at Talk:Vincent van Gogh... Modernist ( talk) 22:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I re-nominated List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings) at FLC. A previous nomination failed (with one "support" and no "oppose") because of a lack of reviews. All comments of that nomination have been addressed and the list has virtually not changed since then. I am looking for reviewers to comment on the list with regard to the featured list criteria. Pleas leave your comments/votes here. Thanks. bamse ( talk) 09:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I am surprised that when ever impressionism is mentioned it is attributed solely to Paris as the cradle of this style of painting. If one were to do a little more study I am convinced that in fact impressionism as it evolved in Paris was probably largely influenced or inspired by the paintings of Turner and his impact on painting with his studies of the effects of light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.71.32 ( talk) 14:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Airbrush is the same as Aerograph although this is the original brandname of Devillbiss. An airbrush is best suited to very detailed fine spray work such as graphics; it works from a small compressor; the flow rate of paint is very small so it is not suited to painting large areas. For larger areas where a litre of paint or less is to be applied, HVLP is usually used. This is an air spray gun in which a High Volume of Low Pressure air is used; it is similar to the older type of "conventional" air spray gun that is relatively inefficient in transferring the paint to the work (less than 30% transfer). HVLP equipment is often used by joiners and shopfitters, and can be powered from a compressor having at least 12 cfm of delivered air, or from a mutli-stage air turbine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Dundas ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I have an outline ready for the topic of freelance design; which I was surprised isn't already up. I am looking for other professional in the field of design (graphic, web, illustration, photography) who know of the subject first-hand OR someone who is simply a great copy-editor and can help with formatting, etc. It's going to be a substantial amount of information. If you're interested, please drop me a line here. I watch this page daily and will definately see your message. Hope to hear from someone out there! Thanks! -- Neon Sky ( talk) 04:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Template:BranchesofVisualArt has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 04:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I've put up Anthony Roll for a peer review. The Roll is a list of warships, but also contains a series of rather unique illustrations that are discussed at some length in the article. If anyone from the project would be interested in looking at them, I'd be glad to listen to your comments and recommendations.
Peter Isotalo 08:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Reported at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mike_Kelley_(artist). Ty 12:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion here about the Art history article. Some input would be welcome. freshacconci talktalk 13:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I stumbled on this article while patrolling new pages and would have nominated it for Speedy delete as it failed to assert notability ("six year old, talented artist... yeah, sure he is...")
A quick knock around with Google and it's apparent he's somewhat different from the other 145 six-year-old artists whose biographies have been deleted this week and is very notable indeed.
I'm not the best equipped to improve this article and the newspaper articles I've found, while being reliable sources for the media interest he's attracted, might not be particularly objective in terms of describing the art. I'd appreciate it if someone else could add to the article. Thanks Catfish Jim and the soapdish ( talk) 11:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone have any information regarding this artist? I have come across 8 small paintings w/her name and address (U.K.) typed and glued on the back of the paintings. Skinner's auction house of Boston did not seem to think they could auction them. Any ideas of value and market would be greatly appreciated. I'm thinking Australia would be a good marketing location. Thank you in advance. contact: Donna foorcoolcats15@msn.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.19.156 ( talk) 17:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that there are two articles that deal with the same subject: Cosmati and Cosmatesque. It might be best to merge them. Commons seems to have enough to make an image gallery, which I could add later. 173.52.187.133 ( talk) 19:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)