Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Arshile Gorky references

Input requested at Talk:Lyrical_Abstraction#Response to #Gorky references (cont). Ty 03:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Meeting with William Innes Homer

Over the last few weeks, I've had a few phone and email discussions with William Innes Homer regarding the List of works by Thomas Eakins article. He's invited me over to his home later this week so that the two of us can go through his extensive research materials and find relevant stuff to add to that article. Just to give one example, Dr. Homer has photographs of all the works owned by Daniel Dietrich II (Dietrich is an extremely prolific collector of Eakins works, and many of the works Dietrich owns have never appeared in print). I'll be toting my laptop and scanner with me. I'll have more to report in a few days.

In the meantime, I've been cross-referencing the article with the checklist in the '74 Hendricks catalog and the Smithsonian cross-collection search (I didn't know such a feature existed until the conference in Denver, when I was able to touch base with an employee there). While tedious and time-consuming, the process has produced a substantial number of fixes for the article. One bizarre result has been a large number (about 8) paintings that have not appeared in *any* of the Eakins literature. (They are listed on the talk page). I'm not 100% confident in the Smithsonian's reliability on this point. (Without trying too hard, I found an error or two in their classification) So I am going to run those by Dr. Homer before proceeding. Raul654 (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Had my second meeting today and he lent me some of his research material to scan. Look for new uploads soon. Also, he gave me contact information for Daniel Deitrich, so I'm going to see if Mr. Deitrich will let me come photograph some of the works he owns. Raul654 (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Terrific Raul; thanks for the effort on behalf of Eakins scholarship. JNW (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The trip to the PMA and to Homer's place was extremely productive. I'm still sorting through the massive amount of material I collected. One interesting development is that Bill Homer gave me a tip to look for sketches done by Lloyd Goodrich while he was writing his 1933 Eakins catalog. I found them in the PMA archive and I got copies of the ones for which I didn't already have a picture (although I didn't have enough time to copy all of them, I got through the first 150 or so). I scanned them and put them up here: [1]. With one exception none of Goodrich's sketches have ever appeared in print. (G19 was reproduced in Homer, '92) The down side is that the sketches are copyrighted and not usable on Wikipedia unless I get permission from the proper Goodrich heir. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Copyright_question this] thread on commons.

I'll have more info on this later. Raul654 (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's another tangible result of these collaborations; Homer loaned me a slide with a full color version of Eakins's portrait of Benjamin Eakins, which my university scanned for me. Raul654 (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Great news! I had another meeting with Dr. Homer today. He has a *ton* of slides in his basement. We went through them, and I set aside a bunch of slides of hard-to-find Eakins paintings, which my University will digitize (for free, since it's being done for a professor). I'll drop them off tomorrow and should have them uploaded next week. Raul654 (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Who-Ha Da-DA Outsider Artists Movement

Who-Ha Da-Da, a movement began in 2002 dedicated to contemporary vernacular American Southern art. An outgrowth of the folk art movement, Who-Ha Da-Da is an extension of the values of its folk art founders re-incarnated in a contemporary generation of practitioners who have had the benefit of public education, exposure to mass media and access to advanced technology. You can find out more at www.whohadada.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pflack (talk • contribs) 12:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Non free images

For the record: on 8 May 2010, there were 72 non-free images in History of Painting.[2] Ty 02:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Three VA articles in the top six: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Pages_containing_an_unusually_high_number_of_non-free_files. I suggest drastic knowledgeable pruning before someone else gets to the articles. One non-free image per section should be the goal, not six. Ty 17:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Difficult with 20th century Western painting. More commentary on the images will help too. What do you think of Louis le Brocquy, where the file uploads claim family consent (he is alive, but 94-odd)? Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The uploads are fair use, not free images. If they want to release them, they will need to confirm per Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and email the permission to the relevant address given there. I can't see any claim of family consent anyway. Ty 05:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously 20th century art requires fair-use. It is a legitimate, and reasonable usage of imagery to describe artwork. As time goes by several images enter the public domain. The use of images in the articles are important (I eliminated a few)...Modernist (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, the le Brocquy article is one of the worst we have on a major (in my view) 20th C artist, and should probably be stubbed. Ceoil (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

A quick glance shows an excessive amount of quoted text, which needs to be drastically trimmed. Ty 05:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

History_of_painting and 20th_century_Western_painting are both overview articles. The amount of non-free images in each section might be necessary and justified in a whole article on the section topic, but not as is. History of Painting, as I've pointed out before is completely unbalanced with about half of it devoted to the last 100 years out of 32,000 years. The non-free images in an article can only be justified by sufficient text which concerns them in a critical way (any art historical narrative relating to them will do this), but not just by a passing mention or a one-liner. However, if sufficient text to justify all the images in 20th century Western painting were added, the article would be far too long. 20th_century_Western_painting works on the WP:SUMMARY mode. Each section should be a summary of the main article, e.g. the section 20th_century_Western_painting#Pop_art should be a summary of the article Pop art. The section has 8 images and the article the same 8 plus another 4, total 12. 8 is not a summary of 12. Maybe two would be. No. 1 on the list at Wikipedia:Database_reports/Pages_containing_an_unusually_high_number_of_non-free_files is (or maybe was) List_of_Canadian_flags. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canadian flags. This is a heads-up. Ty 05:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

So far 12 are removed and starting Monday I'll cut it down more...Modernist (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

39 fair use images have been removed so far...Modernist (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Good work, but it doesn't go far enough, as the list below, taken from the top of Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files of 29 May 2010 shows:

No.	Page	Non-free files
1	Canadian_Forces_ranks_and_insignia	58
2	History_of_painting	51
3	20th_century_Western_painting	51
4	€2_commemorative_coins	32
5	History_of_BBC_television_idents	32
6	Western_painting	31
7	Ranks_and_insignia_of_NATO_armies_officers	30
8	United_States_license_plate_designs_and_serial_formats	28
9	Punk_rock	26

I've gone down to Punk rock as I note it is a featured article, which has 26 non-free images. The large number of images in the VA articles is simply not going to pass when attention is brought to bear on it by those who want as few non-free images as possible on wiki. It is best to take a responsible pre-emptive measure, so that pruning can be done knowledgeably, and a coherent defence of necessary images can be made. I have put forward a rationale and proposal at Talk:History_of_painting#Dealing_with_non-free_images.

Ty 03:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts - I have already cut more than 40 and I'll keep at it...Modernist (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have referred to the above conversation at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:PicassoGuernica.jpg. Ty 02:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Guernica by Picasso

Discussion of the fair use of this image at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:PicassoGuernica.jpg. Ty 21:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it needs to be included in Goya's Third of May, but their point is taken; we need to add more relevant text to the section that will solidify the justification of our using Picasso's Guernica there. I think it belongs but we should add relevant text, and we should rewrite the fair use claims in a better way...Modernist (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Something to bear in mind for similar future usages of such material. Ty 00:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Picasso is a giant of 20th century art, and Guernica along with Les Demoiselles d'Avignon and a few other of his works are among his most important masterpieces. The historical context and political impact of Guernica make it arguably Picasso's greatest achievement as a painter. It is essential to any survey or historical overview of painting which is why it appears in those three survey articles. In my opinion it is both crucial and relevant to all of those articles...Modernist (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Placing of Prints into "Collections of..." categories

Dear all,
Following a discussion on the article "Knight, Death and the Devil" about whether it should be categorised in Category:Prints and drawings in the British Museum I wrote to the curator of Prints and Drawings at the British Museum, An Van Camp (who recently gave local wikipedians a tour of the collection - whose picture was used in the illustration of last weeks's signpost article[3]) and she gave me this reply to pass on to you. The question revolves around the fact that prints (unlike drawings) are not unique and therefore categorising our articles about them by organisation is fraught. Here's her post:

I seem to remember [this issue] was already raised on the Backstage pass day: someone explaining why "Disasters of War" as a series of prints was specifically linked to British Museum (because of the Cean Bermudez album[4]), while the series is also kept by a lot of other museums in the world.

As opposed to drawings which are always unique, prints are always multiples and in normal circumstances impressions of the same print will be held by several museums all over the world. There are cases of unique impressions, of which only one impression is known in the entire world (but who knows, other impressions might be buried somewhere in a private collection that hasn’t been looked at for centuries!). What Johnbod says is correct: “Almost everything in Category:Prints (art) could be categorized in Category:Prints and drawings in the British Museum and, and loads of other "collection" categories, on this basis”.[5].

It is a tricky question: Do you just mention in the article that the British Museum owns an impression (if it is a particular important impression) and do you add a link to the BM object page in a footnote (as with Knight, Death and the Devil) OR do you also place it under "category:Prints and drawings in the British Museum": which does not exclude the article on the print to be linked to other museum collection categories on Wikipedia? In the end it is a print held in the British Museum and placing it in that collection category does not imply exclusivity?

The same with Durer’s woodcut "Triumphal Arch (woodcut)": The British Museum has one of few complete impressions in our collection (and on public display). There is an article on the print on Wikipedia which mentions the impression at the BM and there is also a link to the BM object page and references to our German curator’s catalogues on the subject, which is brilliant! But the print is not categorised under "category:Prints and drawings in the British Museum".

So, I'm wondering if we can/should have a consistent policy about when a Print (and by extension, non-unique artworks like casts of bronze sculptures) should and should not be categorised in our "collections of..." categories. Witty Lama 12:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Under WP:OCAT, a category should be "defining" for the subjects categorized in it. I think "common" prints certainly fail this test. If you have to research whether a category can be used, something is wrong - it should be clear even from a short article, which will not normally be the case here. Our best series of articles on prints is that on Category:William Hogarth paintings and prints, which are all of course in the BM, but also every other significant print collection (and can still be readily bought). If they were fully added to the relevant categories in the large tree Category:Museum collections, they would be in - how many - 50 perhaps, maybe more? This would be pointless, & WP:CFD has consistently shown its dislike of this sort of thing. I think there should be some particular connection before a print is added. The BM I Modi is the unique surviving impression of the original series, so that is defining. Cleveland has a unique impression of the 1st state of Battle of the Nudes (engraving), so I think that would be ok, but they don't have a category. I think Triumphal Arch (woodcut) (one of my articles) has a stronger case than Knight, Death and the Devil to be categorized, but I never added the BM category. There is a bit of a similar issue over "types" of classical sculpture, like Discobolus, but I am ok with the situation there - some might not be. Editions of less than say 6 or even 10, whether prints or bronzes, are a different matter, more like versions & repetitions of paintings, of which there are some examples. These can be regarded as "defining" I think. LOVE (sculpture) is a bit of a ho-hum case, but at least it is currently only in one 1/2 location categories. By the way, if all the prints the BM has were added, I guess there would be over extra 100 articles categorized, with Escher, Hogarth, the Japanese etc. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

William James Blacklock

This rather little known early Victorian artist seems to be an obsession of User:Wjblacklock who has left many many messages on my talk page insisting that this great genius's role in art history should be recognised. He insists on adding the claim that Blacklock was a major influence on the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, though I know of no sources that refer to his work in this way. In the article on this artist he describes his style as "neo-photographic" (Blacklock died in 1858, so the prefix 'neo' seems odd). The version of the Blacklock article preferred by this user stated that "Blacklock's art has perhaps more claim than that of Gustave Courbet to be the artistic wonder or critical moment between the great romantics and the great impressionists. His works are very rare and there are strong similarities in the construction of his colouring and technique to that of Giorgione, and more so Giovanni Bellini, a true master of light in his landscape." All this is rather OTT for sure, but I find it difficult to engage with this user on my own because of his over-intense involvement and assertiveness. Any input would be gratefully received. Paul B (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

At a glance it appears that you, Johnbod, and Hebrides have done a good job patrolling this. Looks like all the right steps are taken: cite tags, talk page notice re: pending removal of unsourced or original research, and warnings to an editor, recently blocked, as warranted. Do you think the page should be protected from disruptive edits or edit warring? JNW (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

He blanked my talk page after my edits, so an eye needs to be kept upon. But no protection is needed yet I think. Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the Blacklock page. When I see situations like this, I always think it's either a family member, or someone who owns the artist's work and is trying to inflate the market.... JNW (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, certainly an SPA. But I am myself descended from an artist in a somewhat similar position, Richard Burchett, & there are ways & ways of doing it, & even adding to the PRB page, without triggering the eagle eye of Superintendant-Professor Barlow. Of course family history turns up suprises: at least my one only went bankrupt, something (not found by me, see the talk) two versions of the Dictionary of National Biography & other sources had missed, not died of syphillis, maybe. Johnbod (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood, and interesting disclosure. You're right--it's the heavy handed SPA edits, complete with grandiose claims, that get our attention. JNW (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Burchett. I wrote about him once. Part of the problem is that virtually any Victorian artist with a penchant for detail or mediveal subjects gets labelled Pre-Raphaelite. Of coourse it might be an idea to add a few lines on precursors of the movement. Paul B (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't pick up anything on Google, and critical comment on him is pretty thin on the ground, so any additions to the article would be welcome. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've looked through a few books but can't find anything. Jason Rosenfeld wrote a DNB entry on him, and there's quite a bit of detail in Newall's catalogue entry on the landscape auctioned at Sotheby's last week. Paul B (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I meant on Burchett actually; blood is thicker than oil paint & I'll let the SPA make the running on Blacklock. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh Burchett, sorry! I heard someone was writing a biography. I just wrote a bit about his work in Westminster, but nothing original. I think the info came from Boas' article on the Palace of Westminster. Paul B (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. My search turned up a lively account in the Memoirs of William Bell Scott which I'd missed before, so that's just gone in. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

He's also discussed on and off in Elizabeth Bonython and Anthony Burton's biography of Cole, The Great Exhibitor. Paul B (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look that up. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It must be the summertime

Anybody care to have a dialogue with this guy? [6], please be my guest...Modernist (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Death of General Warren at the Battle of Bunker's Hill, June 17,1775

The Death of General Warren at the Battle of Bunker's Hill, June 17,1775 is mistakenly titled by its more popular, but incorrect, title The Death of General Warren at the Battle of Bunker Hill. If someone can change the title, I would be much obliged. http://www.mfa.org/collections/search_art.asp?recview=true&id=34260 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldhistoryteacher (talk • contribs) 16:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Link please! Where is this? Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, changed etc...Modernist (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Mildred Anne Butler (whats a fair use image?)

I was bold and expanded the article . It still needs copyediting to fix the Style but I would like to know about copyright and which images are fair use to help improve the article. Please comment on the talk page. Thanks Mrchris (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Morris

Please watchlist. Probably COI reversions to an inadequate version of the article. Removal of tag. Etc. Ty 19:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added a copypaste tag, because large segments of text are identical to wording seen elsewhere--please remove the template if it's determined that the Wiki text was there first. JNW (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted. Due for stubbing possibly. Where has it appeared. Presumably you're aware of the many mirror sites of wiki. Ty 02:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Seen at http://www.theadamandeveprojects.com/artist/sarah-morris. Also some seen here: http://www.artdaily.com/index.asp?int_sec=11&int_new=24483&int_modo=2. Don't know which came first, but these are sites with copyrights. JNW (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I doubt if these publications have copied the wiki content, although it may be the same source that has given the info to them and put it on wikipedia. The bottom line is where it appeared first. If we can't discern that, I think we will have to assume the wiki content is a copyvio. Ty 13:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Questions about being added

Hi Everyone,

Not sure if this is the best place to ask, but not sure how to get started. I am an amateur street artist in Chicago, and several people who have seen my work on the street have suggested I look into being added to wiki. Is there anyone in the community that I may be able to speak with, show them my work, answer some questions, and see if it's possible to be added to wiki? Any suggestions on how to proceed would be most welcome.

Thanks in advance,

Rob

Rehgn3 (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rob, a reading of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RELIABLE should be helpful. If there have been articles published about you in objective reliable sources that would support your significance, that would be a first step. And then it is always better for someone else with whom you're not associated, per WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, to write it. But do keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't a blog or a registry; articles must meet content WP:GUIDELINES. Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank JWN, this is a big help. So really to be added someone independant needs to create an article? I am a little confused though, is it possible for articles to be written on wikipedia, or do articles need to be from an outside source? Also, is it a breach of wikipedia's best practices to look for someone here that may be interested in reveiwing my work to see if it noteworthy?

Thanks again for the speedy response —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehgn3 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Nationality in infoboxes [Nationality deletions]

This editor User:Mootros has engaged in massive deletions of Dutch and Italian artists, claiming they have no nationality. I have reverted his edits to Italian artists and his edits to Dutch artists have been reverted as well. I would appreciate other opinions, thanks...Modernist (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I've tried to engage on his talk page, with little success. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the concept of "Nationality" or "Nation" for people who lived prior to the 18th century. There here no nations or nationalities before 18/ 19th century. For example, there might have been Dutch or Italian people, or a Dutch Republic or a Republic of Florence, which makes it absurd to say Italian or Dutch nationality. People might have had Dutch ethnic origin, with Dutch custom, speaking Dutch, painting Dutch pictures.. but) the idea of a nation or nationality did not exist during the 17th century. Mootros (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This is simply not true, & the only source you have produced for this is the WP article nationality, which is a poor stub. All of this is another argument for removing infoboxes altogether. Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this misses the point; the only evidence people keep citing is some notion of "nationality" used by library classification systems or cataloguing systems. This is a marginal view of the concept of nationality and is used in a misleading way in the info boxes. Info boxes should merely state basic facts not highly controversial concepts open to interpretation. What is to be gained by adding such historical inaccuracy to the info box? Mootros (talk) 06:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Rembrandt - Dutch - born July 15, 1606, Leiden, Netherlands - enc. Britannica [7]. It says Dutch and in the Netherlands...Modernist (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, fully agree! Rembrandt was Dutch. I strongly disagree he held Dutch Nationality. His nationality might have been classified as Dutch in hindsight by a library or museum. This makes it already a controversial issues, as this retro attribution of nationality is limited to one marginal view of the concept and tends to be in contradiction with the general use of the concepts of nationality. What is to be gained by adding such historical inaccuracy to the info box? Mootros (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The argument is WP:OR as it advances an idea not found in the relevant sources, whose lead we follow. The Metropolitan Museum of Art states: "The name and nationality of the maker(s) of the object are given, if known."[8] It then gives as examples, "Attributed to Petrus Christus (Netherlandish, act. by 1444, d. 1475/76)" and "Workshop of Rogier van der Weyden (Netherlandish, 1399/1400–1464) (possibly Hans Memling, act. by 1465, d. 1494)". If you then search the collection for e.g. Andrea del Sarto you will find the nationality stated as "Italian, Florentine".[9] Ty 02:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Forentine a nation? What is the point of introducing a library/ museums classification concept (which participial relies on "historically-inaccurate lumping" techniques) to an info box? What is to be gained? Mootros (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to edit Wikipedia, then you have to apply the core policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. This means we follow the lead of recognised sources. You acknowledge what the sources do ("His nationality might have been classified as Dutch in hindsight by a library or museum"), but you disagree with them. Wikipedia is not the place to innovate your ideas in the face of established usage. If you want to do that, get the libraries and museums to change, and then Wikipedia will follow suit. Ty 13:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No the point is that the use of the term nationality by libraries in this context is rather different and special in contrast to the usual usage throughout this encyclopaedia. This makes it confusing and partially untrue. Rather useless for an infobox. I cannot see anywhere else in the article where it says "Nationality X" If you want to follow the source, the info box should state "library/ museums classification's nationality". What is to be gained by introducing this historical inaccuracy, by stating a "nationality"? Has the infobox become a part of classification system that by its very nature partially relies on such ahistorical lumping? Mootros (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

In the section below you dismiss the argument, "that's the way we do it" (I agree with you); yet here that is exactly the argument you are employing. Your line of thought is contrary to world-wide accepted usage. If we accept your thinking, then there is, e.g. no Italian Renaissance. Ty 01:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all. Italian in the Italian Renaissance is deeply releated to the idea of Italian culture and partially to Italian ethinicity. I have maintained form the very beginning there are surely " Dutch people (of Dutch ethnic origin, with Dutch custom, speaking Dutch, painting Dutch pictures..." All I am saying, lets not use the word nationality in a historical context in some Willy nilly way, especially not in an info box. Mootros (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

According to your post below, "I don't think there was any Italy when Botticelli was born. Italy was founded at the end of the 19th century." This is your reason for saying it is not appropriate to use the term "Italy" for anything prior that date. Yet general usage does employ the term to refer to things that occurred prior to that. It is used in such a way in Italian Renaissance and Italy, e.g. in the latter, "In the sixth century AD the Byzantine Emperor Justinian reconquered Italy from the Ostrogoths." You are even wrong about the foundation of Italy. See History of Italy: "The name Italy (Italia) is an ancient name for the country and people of Southern Italy." Clearly "Italy" is in widespread usage to refer to what happened in the country that is now Italy, prior to its current political state. Ty 02:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

[Moved from below to here] I am not sure it should (just) be discussed here, since you also feel that Cardinal Richelieu was not French [10]; no doubt the French WikiProject would have had something to say about that if I had not reverted you. Just out of interest, from what dates are people allowed, according to you, to have French Dutch or Italian nationality, and why those dates, and what are your sources? Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you talk about nationality in the sense as citizenship, I would say in this specific case of France not before 1804. (see Rogers Brubaker, Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany (Harvard, 1992). If you read any random book on nationality see here http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=naLMTURfICAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=nationality+&ots=22L-SerJKU&sig=lJcJzkOcf3an1ht2VqPyPWk0XB0 you get an idea how the concept of nationality is deeply entwined with the concept of the nation state. These where generally not around before the 18/19th century. However, if you talk about nationality as an ethnic concept, which is completely different from citizenship (see D Miller 1998, link above) it becomes more complicated, one might be able to move further back in time or one might find oneself in current times for example on the Balkan (see Miller 1998, again). If you talk about nationality as a library/ museums classification than it would not matter at all, because its purpose is not historical accuracy but compartmentalising things. These three different key ideas, make it not straight forward at all and leave lots of room for confusion --that's the reason why I am asking what is value of this problematic item in a the box. Mootros (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You are the only one who seems to have a problem. The value is to ensure consistency with established usage of major international sources per WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, which is what a reader would expect. I note you have not commented on the usage mentioned above of Italian Renaissance. Should that be renamed? Ty 01:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have, see above. Where are these sources apart from library catalogues? What is the value of this historical inaccuracy in the infobox? Mootros (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You did that after my comment. Ty 02:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have presented two major international sources, as an example: How is this an issues of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR? Mootros (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Because they don't refer to the issue at question, which is the classification of artists, where the sources are against you. You are making an argument which is WP:SYNTH. Ty 03:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are total twaddle, I'm afraid! France, like most European states, had a well-developed sense of national citizenship well before that, and a number of bureaucratic procedures to administer it. I suggest you read p. 23 of the book On Nationality you link to. Perhaps you should raise this in a wider forum, sionce you are clearly finding no support here. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Twaddle? What bureaucratic procedures prior to the Napoleonic code 1804 do you refer to? Do you mean a cultural sense of belonging? Another secondary reference [[11]] showing even more problem on the issue of nationality (as citizenship) prior 1843/1913 on the case of Germany with its many different legally recognised local nationalities (i.e. Bavaria Prussia). Mootros (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You had French passports, foreigners could apply for French citizenship, all that. I'm beginning to think you know very little about this subject. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What bureaucratic procedures prior to introduction of the Napoleonic code 1804 do you refer to support your assertion of a "well-developed sense of national citizenship" in the 17th century? The only reference to "passport" in this book is on p 45 and that's Johann_Gottlieb_Fichte's comments. Perhaps, you are confusing the exception of the United Kingdom, where British Nationality Act 1772 makes a clear definition that builds on even older customs. Where would this leave good old Botticelli in the Republic of Florence? Mootros (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion really isn't about Botticelli or Rembrandt; it appears that you have a broader aim, and these are merely examples. You're proposing an alteration in a traditionally accepted policy that would impact thousands of articles. That being the case, a consensus, and not just among art editors, becomes all the more important, and the appropriate venue would seem to be elsewhere after all. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History is the appropriate place, unless someone has a better suggestion. JNW (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. I guess History would be a good place and useful to get some further input. But I am under the impression (opinion) that this way of thinking is particularly notable in the (European) visual arts. Mootros (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you JNW, for guiding this discussion. Mootros (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. It's not my intent to guide, but there's a lot of art literature to support the current policy. I suspect the same is true in other fields, and that it's not only art historians who adhere to this model. Yes, in my own collection I've found an art book that uses more specific designations for Italian artists (Umbrian, Florentine, etc), but it also refers to Rembrandt as Dutch. And most of the publications I've come across concur with the museum supported usage that Tyrenius has noted. But I do think you're broaching a wider issue, and even if you found the editors here in agreement with you, you'd be debating this all over again in other provinces. JNW (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I still think it is a rather arbitrary way to go about this, in terms of user boxes and does not add any value so ever. To put it in another way, from what point would you (all commentators) attribute a nationality. Lets take the example of Rumi, why would nobody add here in the info box Iranian, if we consider Historical Persia as related to Iran? There is not logic to this, Botticelli yes but Rumi two hundred years earlier no? Perhaps we should talk this to Biography project? What do people think? Mootros (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Cases vary, so I suggest you take it to the relevant Wikiproject in each case. Nobody normally calls Ancient Romans "Italian" but Chinese people of similar date are called "Chinese". I did suggest this at the start. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I doubt this, that Nationality Chinese is used for this period. Wikiproject biography sounds a good place to talk about the vague and random use of the term "nationality" in info boxes, I guess. Mootros (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

So far nobody has addressed my question: What is the value of this ahistriocal generalisation in the info box that usually gets never repeated in the main text? Mootros (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that the lack of response is related to a general lack of enthusiasm for infoboxes, period. Not an issue to incite passion either way for me, but I think it's been discussed here before, and there were indiscreet murmurs of knocking the art infobox template unconscious late one night and burying it before sunrise. JNW (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The active members of this project tend to dilike infoboxes because they often lead to oversimplification, and they are very often added by others (Wikiproject Biography is that way), but the text will normally (and should) contain the same designation but usually phrased less baldly. Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will be roused from my formatting apathy when there's a call to do away with all 'in pop culture' sections. Ech. JNW (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have already answered the question in my post above of 01:47, 3 July 2010. I will repeat it: "The value is to ensure consistency with established usage of major international sources per WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, which is what a reader would expect." Ty 23:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The nationality item in the info box is never supported with a citation and within the lead these assertions (held nationality X or what attributed nationality Y) for historical figures are really made and even less frequently supported with sound evidence. How is this consistent? Odd and random is what springs to my mind. Mootros (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

People seem to be passionate enough to care about this, evident on the swift action after I have removed the questionable items. Mootros (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What will happen if we move this discussion to the Biography project and a sound consensus will be reached, would contributors here agree with this? Mootros (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Irepeat that individual country wikiprojects are the right places to discuss specific instances, though some overall point may be made at the Biography project. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProjects do not overrule policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. It is quite clear that major sources, whom we are obliged follow, use the nomenclature that is currently employed in infoboxes and that you dispute. Ty 16:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In that case should we not specify the nomenclature in more detail because and introduce a new item called library classification nationality? Mootros (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Place of birth in infoboxes

[the following has been copied from here]

I don't think there was any Italy when Botticelli was born. Italy was founded at the end of the 19th century. Why such inaccuracy? Mootros (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC):See my post after (unindent) in the preceding section. Ty 02:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC):

Where does it say born in Italy. Mootros (talk) 06:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The infobox has a separate entry for where he was born, so that is not at issue. Ty 13:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue is he was not born in Italy, as this box claims. Mootros (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think reverting and counter-reverting within individual articles--Botticelli and Rembrandt-- is the way to resolve this. It ends up being a battle of wills and leads to edit warring, perhaps the least preferable mode. If there is to be a discussion, the place to continue it is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, and bring sources rather than original research. Mootros, I comprehend your point, but you are acting unilaterally, and thus far you don't appear to be interested in consensus. JNW (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC):

Yes you are right it should be discussed at WikiProject Visual arts. To be honest, I am in shock and disbelief that a GA article like Rembrandt is passed with such mistakes (stating born in the Netherlands, not even something "what is nowadays called NL") and when one corrects this, it is instantly reverted. I am not interested in editwarring but currently I am rather shocked. Attitudes by other editors as shown on this page with statements "No that's the way we do it" are not particularly inviting. Mootros (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The National Gallery says, "Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn was born in Leiden in the Netherlands in 1606."[12] Wikipedia policy demands that we follow such major sources of world-wide stature, rather than an editor's opinion, as I have pointed out before to you. Note also from the NG: "the Florentine painter and draughtsman Sandro Botticelli was one of the most esteemed artists in Italy."[13] Ty 00:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The name "Netherlands" predates by centuries the present "Kingdom of the Netherlands", and in any case it is the current state a place is in that is significant. Infoboxes clearly contain summarized information; the place for "then part of " is in the text. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If this is the case, I cannot see any such qualification in the text in the GA article like Rembrandt. Mootros (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And again, where does the source say born or died in Italy? Does it not uses in an non-formal way of talking the word Italy as "that what we nowadays call Italy". Mootros (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. It says he was "one of the most esteemed artists in Italy", which according to you is an incorrect thing to say, but regardless of that it is obviously the widely accepted way of describing things. Ty 03:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it not that he is currently esteemed in Italy, or has been held in esteem in the recent history since the formation of modern Italy, but how can we assert that his was born in Italy. We cannot because at the time there was no Italy. Mootros (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is the source that states he was born in Italy? Mootros (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Italy as a country existed then, if not as a state. But in any case, geographical indications use current political borders, not older ones. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. So Immanuel Kant was born in Russia, than? Where is the source that states Botticelli was born in Italy? Mootros (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Massive deletions

This editor AuburnPilot is threatening massive across the board deletions at History of painting, opinions would be appreciated here:[14]Modernist (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I am stating simple fact: there is zero justification for an article to have 400+ images (actual count). I believe History of painting needs to have a large number of images removed in order for the article to be of any value. Right now there are far too many image galleries, reducing the value of the article and general usability. Image galleries in such form should be linked to from Wikipedia to Commons. --auburnpilot talk 16:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can figure I think the article needs in depth text, and more informative captions beyond simply identifying the various movements represented...Modernist (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of other considerations, the use of Commons for art articles is not at all satisfactory for a number of reasons, a good one being that we are Wikipedia editors, not Commons editors. Articles should be complete in themselves, not direct readers off elsewhere. Commons is often a mess, to put it bluntly. Images that are important to the understanding of the article should be here. The issue is what is or is not important. Ty 18:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Commons galleries are especially useless. In what way does AuburnPilot think an article on painting has no value because it has too many images? Seems an odd view. Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be when there are 400+ images. At its current size, the article would be very difficult for editors/readers with slow connections to load the page and the current organization needs to be reworked to focus on broad aspects with details provided in sub-articles. Buy it'd be best to keep comments on Talk:History of painting, not here, so I'll be happy to answer any other questions there. --auburnpilot talk 20:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Do these three articles meet notability requirements: Bull Rider and the Cody Nite Rodeo, Blake Paul Neubert, Lily Adamczyk? Bus stop (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that none of them do, based on the references provided so far - a passing mention in a catalogue or show review is not enough. Adamcyk is probably closest at the moment, but she seems the artistic equivalent of a successful local restaurant - a certain amount of local coverage, but nothing outside her region (qv WP:CORP). Certainly I'm not seeing anything that would pass WP:ARTIST. It also bothers me that the article was initiated and largely written by a known problem account, User:Kernelsandirs who has had two articles speedy-deleted and now looks like a WP:SPA. The case for Neubert looks even weaker - and even if he is kept, the Bull Rider should be merged into his article. Le Deluge (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say no also. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Dickinson

Comments are welcome at Talk:Edwin Dickinson regarding a proposal to split some content from the greatly expanded article. Ewulp (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Steve McQueen (artist)

An IP has been edit warring at Steve McQueen (artist) and a few other articles. He essentially wants to remove the term "nouvelle vague" because it's not English. I feel it's an excepted term in English in film studies and thus artists like Steve McQueen. He's already violated 3RR today. I haven't reverted his last edit but he's been warned a few times on his talk page. If others feel English terms should only be used in articles, fine, but it should be discussed. freshacconci talktalk 20:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

He's blocked, [15] as far as I can tell nearly all of his edits are bad ones, not vandalism just really lame editing...Modernist (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Anish Kapoor image

An editor is trying to remove the only image of a characteristic Kapoor work in the article, which has a fair-use rationale. At the same time more discussion in the article of the work Cloud Gate (FA) would be useful. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Something to note is that this is a sculptor who I would strongly assume has work displayed in places where there is a freedom of panorama for sculptures, meaning that a picture purely as an "example of his work" would be replaceable with an image from one of the freer areas. I haven't looked at the issue at hand (I will if you like) but that is a thought to consider. J Milburn (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but we only seem to have good photos of his characteristic mirror-finish works from Germany & the US. Most of his displays in the UK are temporary. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Sky Mirror, Nottingham.JPG. I've replaced the non-free image with this one, which is free (the sculpture is on permanent public display). Ty 19:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It'd be good if you could update the page with notes about who owns the copyright on the sculpture, and about how it is covered by FOP. J Milburn (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There's also some concern about this image. J Milburn (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? Both of these are covered by normal UK FOP. Johnbod (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

They're only covered by FOP if they are on permanent public display.[16] (This doesn't apply to graphic, i.e. 2-D, works, for future reference.) Ty 08:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which (Wolfgang Tillmans)

The editor Gallery history has also been editing at Wolfgang Tillmans. His/her edits are actually rather minor there but that article is a mess. I will try tackling it but others may want to have a look as well. freshacconci talktalk 11:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

His/her recent edits may be minor, but see this. That aside, thank you freshacconci! -- Hoary (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"White on White" by Kazimir Malevich

"White on White," by Kazimir Malevich may need flipping — both vertically and horizontally.

Spelling inconsistencies too in both first and second names.

This is the Wiki image used at present at 3 articles.

I'm assuming that this image is correct. Bus stop (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Good catch Bus Stop, definitely needs flipping, I retitled it: Suprematist Composition: White on White...Modernist (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The MoMA link is correct. It's easy to miss as a thumbnail. Poor Kaz. freshacconci talktalk 13:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We need a newer correct version this commons version: File:Kazimir Malevich - 'Suprematist Composition- White on White', oil on canvas, 1918, Museum of Modern Art.jpg is oriented correctly but is way too dark and needs cropping...Modernist (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, can someone pop on over to MoMA with a camera...? freshacconci talktalk 13:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You can upload the picture off MoMA's website, drag it onto your desktop...Modernist (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I just wanted to see some Wikipedian dragged away by over-zealous MoMA guards. freshacconci talktalk 13:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm painting an updated version right now — in 8 colors. Bus stop (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Now you're talkin'...Modernist (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Request Ileana Sonnabend

Hello..I'm new here...Can you guys create a Wiki page for Ileana Sonnabend she was the first wife of Leo Castelli, Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.236.75 (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The current situation is that the page exists as a redirect to Castelli see here. Presuming she was/is WP:N the article on Sonnabend would continue on this page with the redirect removed. Start the article yourself perhaps. Why do you suggest it as a "request"? --Artiquities (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have now started the article by reworking material from the Castelli article --Artiquities (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Great. Just a note here: when material is used from another article, that needs to be recorded in the article where it is placed in the edit summary and/or the talk page to preserve copyright continuity. It is using copyright material, i.e. the copyright of the person(s) who wrote it in the first article. It is used under a free licence, which requires credit. I have done this for Ileana Sonnabend. Ty 21:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks, yes I should of thought of that.--Artiquities (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Good start so far - a lot of material can be added about her gallery in Paris; and her gallery in NYC as well as her relationship with Castelli and the NY artworld...Modernist (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Input about Jacob Epstein

Concerning the lede at Jacob Epstein - American or British?...Modernist (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean which variation of English to use? He was born American but was knighted. A knighthood is pretty damn British. I say British spelling for this instance. freshacconci talktalk 03:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, do you mean should we consider him American or British? freshacconci talktalk 03:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Bacon requested move

I have requested that Francis Bacon--the philosopher becomes Francis Bacon (philosopher) in order that Francis Bacon (artist) become more accessible. The discussion is here Talk:Francis Bacon#Requested_move --Artiquities (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There is now a survey at Talk:Francis_Bacon#Survey. Ty 13:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

V. Ganapati Sthapati

It might be helpful if any interested editors here weighed in with their opinion on the article for the Indian sculptor and architect V. Ganapati Sthapati. He is apparently quite notable in India, but published third party sources in English seem hard to find. There is at the moment a slightly aggressive editor who has put a BLP template on the article. I have suggested an AfD to resolve the issue. Other opinions would be much appreciated. Talk page discussion is here. -- 173.52.134.182 (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Leningradartist

Some people will have come across him before; he appears to be the author of a book on "Unknown Socialist Realism. The Leningrad School", and is now adding massive inappropriate blocks of images by modern "socialist realist" artists to several general articles: [17] These all seem to be from his book, and on his website, & I suspect they are for sale, although the website seems coy about this. They were all added to Commons by him under a OTRS licence: "I, Leningradartist, hereby publish this image under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license. I hereby claim that I am duly authorized to do so by virtue of the contract with the author of this image in accordance with Russian legislation." Hmmm. I have reverted some edits but not looked at them all. Also posting to COI noticeboard. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment here as well:[18]...Modernist (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Edits may cross the thin line between the contributions of an expert and conflict of interest. Yes, contributor appears to be loading articles with these images. JNW (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've left a message on his talk page; he also wrote the Wikipedia article about himself [19]. Of concern is the probability that he's an expert in his field-- which would be fine in theory, if he didn't appear to be promoting his publication and website and-- is using that knowledge to edit on the subject, unchecked, and give it a disproportionate place in other articles. JNW (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Paul Soldner

The article on ceramic artist Paul Soldner could do with some attention by people who have some knowledge in the field. The article was tagged with both "notability" and "unreferenced" templates (the latter since May 2008) and the article was a right old mess. It's still not great. I've started a tidy up and added a couple of references but it seems to me that an artist of this calibre deserves a better article on Wikipedia. It's not my area of expertise. I came across it in the Unreferenced BLP Rescue Project current drive to clean up all the UBLPs in May 2008. I'm posting here in the hope that someone in this project might like to take an interest.--Plad2 (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Cubist Sculpture Article Lacking Critical Detail

Cubist Sculpture comes across as woefully naive, as it fails to make a single reference to Derain's "Crouching Figure." Sorry I don't have the time at the moment to fill in the details. I'll try to get back to it if no one beats me to the punch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skidoo (talk • contribs) 04:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Visual arts articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Visual arts articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Maureen Paley restructuring

As of August 9-10, the article is getting a "major restructuring of the entire text to the express wishes of Maureen Paley." Have tried to express that the article is not intended as a comercial vehicle and should follow WP:NPOV and WP:MOS. Referenced material has been removed and Template:Young British Artists--although the gallery is widely accepted as significant in that context. The user Gallery history is an SPA. --Artiquities (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I did some basic copyediting and removed the promotional material. The editor in question has been warned and another editor posted at the COI notice board about the situation. freshacconci talktalk 11:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Note anon IP edit, User:70.19.197.105. [20] Ty 15:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There is activity again at the Paley article, including what I would interpret as a vague legal threat. This is the same IP as before who is editing after I reverted changes by Gallery history. freshacconci talktalk 17:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a question, did I saw correctly the edit? Is it the removal of her own artwork from 1973? --Anneyh (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Allora & Calzadilla

This artist duo have been selected to represent the USA in the 2011 Venice Biennale. I have been doing some edits on this page, usually trying to edit and format edits made by a very erratic editor Smarnett. Things have been getting more erratic recently, particularly when that editor decided to nominate the page for speedy and restart a completely new page Allora and Calzadilla, for which, that user got up to a level 4 warning.

I have tried to offer support and guidance to this editor but my advice is always ignored. Could anyone have a look? At my edits you see some semblance of an article at least. In particular Smarnett has a strange ownership behavior whereby any warning tag added to the article--even the basic "cleanup"--must always be removed on sight.--Artiquities (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Art bollocks

Any thoughts on this, esp. from our UK editors, since it's a term that fits within your vernacular? Problem one is that this is a whole lot of OR. Whether the term exists and is in general use is one question, but the way this article is written is unsourced OR. Problem two is, of course, is it actually being used enough to warrant an article? freshacconci talktalk 14:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess in the US we just say bullshit...Modernist (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Look like a complete load of old Jackson to me. The expression is barely if ever used. Certainly not common. Paul B (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - best as 2 lines in our non-existent article on the art market or art trade. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Very bitterly written fuckology. Ceoil (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll take that as a negative, but then what do you call that technical art-sales language? "Artspeak (language)" perhaps, as there is an Artspeak. I am a long-time art collector, not a theorist. Please observe WP:CIV, even if you disagree with me. Please also allow that the article is brand new and I have plenty of other sources to add to it.Red Hurley (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

How can we change this to Artspeak when it is a place in Canada? Any better suggestions?..Modernist (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Simple, it would be named Artspeak (language), just as I've done a page on Thomas Bartlett (historian) to aviod confusion - see Thomas Bartlett (disambiguation). Not that it is a language, but that it comes under the general heading of language and use of language. Can anyone deny that there are numerous examples? Can anyone think of a better name? If someone can argue coherently in its favour, please do so. I am not anti-AB, but the contrarians are making all the running.Red Hurley (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Artists have been Art Bollocks along with dealers for a long time. I refer to a section in abstract expressionism: “Art critics of the post-World War II era.” Many of the artists of lesser ability learned about self-promotion from their more talented or more successful predecessors. I am not sure that there can be a recipe to find quality. If dealers and/or art bollocks would not exist then they would have to be invented. Most collectors cannot easily see the difference between art bollocks or experts. Experts also have their bias and limitations. The article may be more confusing then useful. (Salmon1 (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC))

I like it. There should be an addressing of the dividing line between saying something about art and exuding hot air. I would definitely not delete it. It is an important topic. Bus stop (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; it has now been listed at - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art bollocks, and perhaps you would consider adding your names in support of keeping the article.Red Hurley (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think renaming it to Artspeak would be doable. The existing article can be renamed Artspeak (gallery) simply enough. Although it was first here on wiki Artspeak the gallery was not first to use the term and obviously was named for the idea of artspeak. We can be bold on this one. A substantial rewrite would be in order to broaden the scope of this article from one of mockery to dealing with the specialized language used within the art world. freshacconci talktalk 14:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with freshacconci. A serious rewrite is needed though to broaden its scope. Ceoil (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What "specialized language used within the art world"? Is there a source on "specialized language used within the art world"? Bus stop (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Really it is a sales language, but to those outside the art world who come across it and are mystified by it, "specialised language" fits the bill. Please suggest any improvement on that.Red Hurley (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of any "specialized language" associated with talking about art. Can you give an example? Bus stop (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting James Brooks requesting the deletion from the article, Lyrical abstraction

• Background

from Talk:Lyrical_Abstraction Citations for James Brooks:

”Since James Brooks clearly states that: "his whole tendency has been away from.... lyrical" therefore there is no reason to list him as a Lyrical Abstractionist painter.(Salmon1 (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

I disagree with that interpretation. Actually Brooks states above "I think my whole tendency has been away from a fast-moving line either violent or lyrical into something that is slower and denser of more wandering and unknowing.” Given the proximity to Jackson Pollock - his neighbor on Long Island the emphasis on line becomes more apparent as Brooks used areas and not lines in his paintings. The text that follows in the book says: "By 1948 Brooks' interest in synthetic cubism had evolved into a lyrical abstraction of stains, drips, and interpenetrating platelets of color." Clearly defining his work as lyrical abstraction...Modernist (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be clear enough that his work was, at least at a certain point, lyrical abstraction, so validating inclusion. Ty 17:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)”

• Proof for deletion James Brooks from Lyrical abstraction

James Brooks statement in 1965: My whole tendency has been away from the fast moving line either violent or lyrical.. James Brooks' testimony in 1965 with the introduction by Ann Temkin Chief Curator, MOMA is added to the External links of the article, Lyrical abstraction. Wikipedia demands reliable sources as reference. The artist, James Brooks’ own testimony from 1965 proofs that he does not belong to the list:

"This is a list of artists, whose work or a period or significant aspects of it, has been seen as lyrical abstraction, including those before the identification of the term or tendency in America in the 1960s." (Salmon1 (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC))

Brooks is rightfully included in the article because of these 3 references one of which includes the quote which is on the sound bite that contains his comment about his line: The sound bite is accompanied by this text by Magda Salvesen and Diane Cousineau: By 1948 Brook's interest in synthetic cubism had evolved into a lyrical abstraction of stains, drips, and interpenetrating platelets of color. ...Modernist (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

References pertaining to James Brooks

Please Modernist sign your name when you respond. James Brooks' own testimony especially when it is provided by the MOMA is a highly reliable source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and depends only on highly reliable sources.

• Provided references by Modernist

NY Times obituary retrieved May 24, 2010

The obituary has no mention of the name of the individual responsible for the article. It cannot be taken seriously.

This is a substantial obituary by an important source. On the contrary it is to be taken seriously - to find the author - you can ask the New York Times for that information...Modernist (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Honolulu Academy of Art retrieved May 24, 2010

The title of the Exhibition: Decades of Abstraction: From the collection of the Honolulu Academy of Arts. James Brooks is mentioned among the artists represented in the exhibition and was not mentioned in relation to Lyrical abstraction.

While that information is not specified it is open to interpretation which of the included artists were being referred to as Lyrical Abstractionists - Brooks's work however fits well within the description in the piece...Modernist (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=m4WP-3ppltgC&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=james+brooks+and+lyrical+abstraction&source=bl&ots=jh-EEyOVJd&sig=o0jaVAaD0-QmLKHUMntPBBL-TiI&hl=en&ei=Kqb-S6eNAoKBlAfGgJHJCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CC4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=james%20brooks%20and%20lyrical%20abstraction&f=false Artists' estates: reputations in trust]

By Magda Salvesen, Diane Cousineau, p.69 Google books, retrieved May 27, 2010

Magda Salvesen is the widow of Jon Schueler has been writing art books primarily to promote the heritage of her late husband. Diane Cousineau [21] seems to be working in the field of promoting Artists’ Estates in Trust along with Magda Salvesen.

I refuse to cast aspersions on the authors and I respect their work, and in no way does it appear to cast aspersions on James Brooks...Modernist (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The acceptance of the reference provided by the MOMA [22] James Brooks' testimony in 1965 with the introduction by Ann Temkin Chief Curator, MOMA seems to be the only action consistent with the pursuit of highly reliable sources. Therefore it is appropriate to delete James Brooks’ name from the article Lyrical abstraction list:

"This is a list of artists, whose work or a period or significant aspects of it, has been seen as lyrical abstraction, including those before the identification of the term or tendency in America in the 1960s." (Salmon1 (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC))

I don't find any of the online refs given here conclusive on the matter either way. If it is true that "The text that follows in the book says: "By 1948 Brooks' interest in synthetic cubism had evolved into a lyrical abstraction of stains, drips, and interpenetrating platelets of color." then he should stay, absent strong evidence the other way. Johnbod (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, though not conclusive, this entry doesn't do anything to dispel the designation [23]. JNW (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It is important to realize that all the comments dismiss the well-established artist James Brooks’ statement about his own art. By his own words James Brooks stated in 1965:

”I think my whole tendency has been away from the fast moving line either violent or lyrical that is slower and denser or more wondering and unknowing.”

Johnbod references : http://books.google.com/books?id=m4WP-3ppltgC&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=james+brooks+and+lyrical+abstraction&source=bl&ots=jh-EEyOVJd&sig=o0jaVAaD0-QmLKHUMntPBBL-TiI&hl=en&ei=Kqb-S6eNAoKBlAfGgJHJCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CC4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=james%20brooks%20and%20lyrical%20abstraction&f=false Artists' estates: reputations in trust]

"By 1948 Brooks' interest in synthetic cubism had evolved into a lyrical abstraction of stains, drips, and interpenetrating platelets of color." then he should stay, absent strong evidence the other way.

This statement was the opinion of Magda Salvesen whose interest is to establish "Artists' estates: reputation in trust" She is the widow of the artist Jon Schueler and has been writing art books primarily to promote the heritage of her late husband. Diane Cousineau [24] seems to be working in the field of promoting Artists’ Estates in Trust along with Magda Salvesen. Magda Salvesen and Diane Cousineau provide an interpretation. The question is, why would the poor sources of references satisfy some Wikipedia editors against the artists’ own words? I would like to reference a video [25] including the comments of James Brooks and narrated by his wife the artist, Charlotte Park. No place in the whole video can one find reference to lyrical abstraction. The question still remains why not delete an artist's name from a list that otherwise may compromise the relevance of the list? Editors in Wikipedia are required to rely on reliable references. I hope that the few editors involved in this rather simple error can come together and make the necessary correction. (Salmon1 (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC))

Why are you impugning the integrity and credibility of authors Salvesen and Cousineau because you disagree with a descriptive phrase they include - which others actually concur is an apt description. Gerald Nordland calls it an engrossing and valuable book, and other reviews by people like Flora Biddle are very favorable: [26]Most people write books with a wide variety of personal and professional motivations, it is the accuracy of the material that we are concerned with not the authors reasons for creating a book. If we were to listen to Mark Rothko's own words - he should not be included in the current MoMA Ab Ex show. Rothko didn't want to be called an abstract expressionist, and he didn't want to be called an abstract painter either; however the vast majority of art world people seem to concur with Rothko being an Abstract expressionist...Modernist (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Having watched the above tape in its entirety - I note first that his work after 1947 looks like Lyrical Abstraction and while he or his wife never mentions that label - (artists never like labels) neither do they mention Abstract Expressionism. Certainly whoever made this tape does; and there is a brief mention of abstract expressionism when briefly describing the 9th street show. Actually Charlotte calls the work - abstract. No one doubts that James Brooks was an abstract painter. What I find particularly interesting to hear is reference to stain painting. His 1948-1949 stain paintings pre-date Pollocks 1951 stain paintings and clearly Brooks pre-dates Helen Frankenthaler's stain paintings of 1952. In fact Frankenthaler credits Pollock with influencing her use of the stain technique and in his Lyrical Abstractions of 1949 James Brooks is clearly seen in his studio with Jackson Pollock. I think the tape confirms Brooks was a Lyrical Abstraction painter. Although his concept of using a line was worded differently....Modernist (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have little new to add, but it did occur to me, as well, that an artist's self-assessment, while interesting, is irrelevant (believe me, I hate to admit that for selfish reasons). Hassam insisted that he wasn't influenced by Monet, and most painters, I suspect, believe their intent is misunderstood. I fail to see an injustice or controversy in the lyrical expressionism designation. The push to reverse this, with personal claims made about art historians, doesn't sit well. JNW (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

James Brooks will always be known as a great American abstract expressionist. Wikipedia:NPOV and Objectivity are being undermined by some editorial zealousness. Frequently artists are described by critics as followers. Art Criticism, Press Coverage & Art of the 1950s-Abstract Expressionism 1950s Part 2 Therefore it is incumbent upon them to point to successful colleagues. Other painters are called imitators and those are the dangerous ones. The only way for them to exist is by being combative. The true professional artists are always able to follow their inner inspiration. (Salmon1 (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC))

The tone is one of veiled accusation, and doesn't belong here. Whistler and Sickert were both inherently combative... and have been classified variously as tonalists, realists, or impressionists; none of these appellations are completely satisfying, yet they are not without some basis in fact. At the end of the day the controversy appears both somewhat esoteric and way personal. JNW (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV and Objectivity are being undermined by editorial zealousness. This does not benefit the article, Lyrical abstraction. (Salmon1 (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC))

In a similar vein, your edit history reveals links from numerous articles about abstract expressionist subjects to a single Youtube video, and references also to an apparently related publication. Without questioning the value of these links and references, they may raise questions about objectivity, conflict of interest, and self-referencing. JNW (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The videos that you are referring to are in the archives of the Smithsonian Institution and in a number of libraries around the Country. They represent a series of gatherings conducted by art historians with surviving members and family of the era of the 1950s. (Salmon1 (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC))

This video you linked to on YouTube appears to be a copyright violation and, if so, links to it should be removed. There is no evidence that copyright clearance has been obtained for the YouTube upload. Ty 08:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Link is not an upload therefore it is the property of its host. An example:[27] see External Links http://www.lewallencontemporary.com/searchresults.php?start=1&artistId=10011692. LewAllen Galleries still own the copyright for the linked site.(Salmon1 (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC))

I hope consensus can be reached among editors and James Brooks' own statement dated 1965 can be honored:

”I think my whole tendency has been away from the fast moving line either violent or lyrical that is slower and denser or more wondering and unknowing.”

upon which his name can be removed from the list in the article Lyrical abstraction:

"This is a list of artists, whose work or a period or significant aspects of it, has been seen as lyrical abstraction, including those before the identification of the term or tendency in America in the 1960s." (Salmon1 (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

Moved my early reference from Oxford Dictionary to American Painters in the article Lyrical abstraction. This may clarify the use of some of the well known abstract expressionists' use in the following list. (Salmon1 (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

Help desk query

There's a question on the help desk today about establishing the notability of a 19th century painter. Could one of you specialists assist? -- John of Reading (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell he was a 20th century American landscape painter (1919-2005), born in Texas and who lived in NYC, Maine and Florida [28], not unknown but not very notable...Modernist (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

1568 in art

FYI, 1568 in art has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Re-organization of Chinese art/arts articles

Chinese art gets a large number of page views - about 800 per day, but is rightly classed as "start" class. The much fuller History of Chinese art (B class) gets fewer than half as many views. A problem both pages share is that they include literature, music and drama and other performance arts. They thus cover The arts rather than art, the latter normally meaning just visual art in English and on en:Wikipedia - see other articles such as German art. I propose the following:

1. rename Chinese art to Arts in China (currently a redirect to "Chinese art"), or possibly just merge with Culture of China
2. Redirect "Chinese art" to History of Chinese art - maybe renaming to the former, as with other country's articles
3. Take all the non-visual art material from the current "History of ..." and merge to the current "Chinese art"/Arts in China - mostly it is better than what is there now.
4. Take the "art market" section from the current "Chinese art" article & add to the current "History of..." article
5. I would then like to improve the main visual art article, over time; the other arts I can't help with.

Comments here please. Johnbod (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Guy Cobb‎

Long and largely unsourced article about a visual artist. I've tagged this for numerous concerns, most prominently that it's written by someone who apparently conducted a private interview with the subject and has included everything that ever happened to him. Anyone who wishes to have a look and perform the necessary surgery deserves a barnstar for meritorious service. JNW (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's a deal. Do it, and I'll give you a barnstar! Ty 01:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The only section that has valid cites is "Down in The Valley of Rural Violence and The Thorn Paintings', that from a local paper. Would you suggest deleting everything else, including the images, just leaving the intro, one section about his work, and the refs? JNW (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest:

1. Decide if he's notable. If not, then AfD. He seems on a quick glance to be notable, but you may have a better idea.
2. Remove all material that is not appropriate, regardless of referencing.
3. Rewrite appropriate material not appropriately written.
4. Ask the creator to provide inline citations (presumably using sources already stated in the References section).
5. Monitor accurate use of sources, using {{request quotation}} and other templates at Template:Citation needed.
6. If material is not substantiated after a reasonable opportunity has been given to do so, then it would be an OK procedure to begin deleting it.
7. Throughout, every assistance should be given to the (new) editor to apply Wiki policy: they have expressed a willingness to listen.
8. A fair but firm stance.
9. If there's an impasse, involve others. See WP:DR.
10. Images: deal with as you see appropriate per normal editing judgement. Maybe a gallery could accomodate some. If they're not properly licensed, point the editor in the right direction, and, if that fails, put the images up for deletion.
11. See you in a few weeks time, when you've finished tearing your beard out.
12. Good luck.

Ty 01:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Well said....I'm hoping to have more pressing matters that would require an equal amount of work, that is to say, several hours' worth. I think it passes the notability test. After that, it's a battle to balance guidelines and fairness. Thanks, JNW (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A month has passed, and it ain't worth a dozen barnstars.... JNW (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm bored enough to give this cleanup a try. Warrenking (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and have at it. I accepted Ty's counter-challenge above, and have left my talk page open for barnstars. JNW (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've read through the page and save for cleaning up the External links section I'm not sure what else I can do. He's sort of dabbled in things and been written about. I'll keep an eye on it. Warrenking (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems like some of the things at issue with this article relate to WP:NOTNEWS because some of these things relate to specific events, including the sports reporting. My personal wiki philosophy is inclusionist so long as it's cited and neutral. I'm conflicted because there's a systemic bias against people from small towns. Warrenking (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Leningradartist

Any opinions about this editor drowning wikipedia in obscure Russian artists? This article is his latest target List of 20th century women artists...Modernist (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah; we've been hereabouts before. It's what happens when someone has an agenda, however well-intentioned, and creates undue emphasis in that direction. It's difficult to manage, but as discussed before here and elsewhere, if any of these edits or new articles rely largely-- or solely-- upon self-referenced publications whose authority has not been established by objective sources, the edits/articles are open to review. In this case, we're looking at a lot of edits. JNW (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This editor kind of rules. I've never heard of any of these artists. But hey, they're in books! It's funny because there are far more noteworthy American artists with puny articles. If only we had more obsessed American art history professors. Warrenking (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Alexis Rockman article

Along with other members of WikiProject Smithsonian, I am working on the Alexis Rockman article. I am aiming to get this quickly up to Good article and then Featured article status. The Smithsonian American Art Museum is opening a new exhibition featuring Rockman's work on November 19th, so it would be lovely to have his article as a featured article and possibly / hopefully on the Main Page. It's an ambitious goal but feasible. I will be visiting the Smithsonian Archives of American Art, gathering reference materials, and work on writing, but would love help in any way you want/can help along the way. This would be a great example of what's possible with collaboration with such a cultural institution and Wikipedians. --Aude (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The above seems to propose that an article on WP be evolved in the context of the press, marketing and publicity for a specific exhibit ... please be aware of WP:OWN WP:COI WP:NPOV.--Artiquities (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the Featured article criteria... it obviously demands articles be NPOV and comply with all other Wikipedia policies. I'm the one that picked the topic, choosing something I think is timely and worth collaboration on now. What the Smithsonian can be most helpful with is finding references, some which might be harder to get, the curator might be able to do a peer review (I could also ask someone at the Brooklyn Museum, since they have worked with Wikipedians before), and might be able to help get an image or two (understanding our copyright policies, it might be a challenge). Through this and other WP:GLAM/SI efforts, we hope to get good cooperation going and some contributions from their curators on various topics (with COI and wiki policies in mind). If you want to help with the article, please do! More help, better the article will be.

I'm also not sure November 19th is totally feasible as a main page date, especially now that I see Hoxne Hoard is proposed for the Main Page on November 16th and a diversity of topics is desired for the main page. (not sure how similar an archaeological item is with an artist bio, but they both relate to museums). Still, it's worth the effort to try, achieve FA status and maybe be on the main page on November 19 or at some point. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I say go for it. The value of having making more free content online about an artist for whom many books have already been published outweighs the conflicts of promoting a museum exhibit. Of course, like any other article users will be allowed to contribute criticism as well as praise. Warrenking (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Covering criticism is totally essential to make the article NPOV. Certainly, given the artists subject matter, there has to be a bit of criticism or commentary available and worth summarizing. --Aude (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)