Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Request for help concerning this painter [1]

New page[2] there are errors in translation from 'Italian to English Labcatal (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Need help with ceramics categories

There is a distinct lack of categorization for decorative ceramics. Please come to Talk:Ceramic and assist in several conversations now underway. Mangoe (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Jo Self

Could someone art-savvy have a glance? [3] (English oil painter of flowers, often large format). It needs objective expansion of critical analysis of her work, plus a bit more weight from real separate editors, as there seems to be a deal of sock activity from one or more involved parties. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Psychocinetic Art

Originally nominated for speedy by Lithoderm, and subsequently nominated twice by me as an AFD, now in discussion to merge with Interactive art. I don't think notability has ever been established, nor enough reliable sources to support significance as a movement, under any spelling. Thus far, I think the links offered cite one artist. Other thoughts welcome. JNW (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Try moving the mention of the one artist's name to interactive art. Merging doesn't mean you have to consider Psych. art as a movement, just relabeling the noteworthy content as interactive. I would do it but don't have time. Lithoderm 20:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone found even a single reliable source for the term? There's nothing online (see Talk:Psychocinetic Art). The single EL doesn't use the term "psychocinetic" or anything like it. Ewulp (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, check out Physioplastic art and Mystical expressionism. Lithoderm 23:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I re-registered my delete there...(at Psychocinetic Art) as an aside...but those two just don't seem like mainstream to me, ya never know...Modernist (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Both Physioplastic art and Mystical expressionism get Google hits; the former is mentioned in literature most often as a concept coined by Max Verworn, the latter given credence by Donald Kuspit to describe Jamali's work. Neither are close to mainstream, but both can be supported by cites, the articles can be expanded. JNW (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggested at Talk:Mystical expressionism that the page be redirected to an article on Jamali if anyone is willing to write one. I would stub him, but can't find a source for even the most basic of information, like his birth date or his first name (if he has one). Lithoderm 01:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Kuspit has written about him, and used the term, but thus far all the Google hits I'm getting are to commercial galleries [4] and bookselling web sites [5], no actual objective sources. JNW (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Mystical expressionism is up for deletion anyway. Seems like no great loss. Lithoderm 03:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/January/14

Please comment. I am sure that more than 60 articles can be found that meet this description. That is, book art stubs.. Lithoderm 01:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC) :There would be even more if Illuminated Manuscripts were also considered part of this category. Lithoderm 01:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Never mind, they already have their own stub category... Lithoderm 01:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And again, about European museums:[6]. Lithoderm 00:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Art materials versus artistic techniques

This question came up at WP:STUBSORT. What is the definition of an artistic technique? Are art techniques solely ways of manipulating materials, or are ways of organizing a composition, like curvilinear perspective or hierarchical proportion artistic techniques? Or are those artistic conventions? Why is there no article on artistic techniques to clear up this indistinctness? Furthermore, how do we decide whether some material specific topics are artistic techniques or art materials? Encaustic painting is a technique (or is it a media???), but encaustic paint is a material. Is gas sculpture a technique or a material or a media, or utter nonsense? We need to formulate some definitions for materials, techniques, media, and conventions, if for no other reason than categorization... Lithoderm 03:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, just noticed that this came up two years ago on this same talk page. [7] I'll read that over and see what I can make of it... Lithoderm 03:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Grant Wood

Thanks for your input on the talk page there. It is useful for the arts editors to have input on how this issue is being seen by others. I would certainly appreciate your drawing attention on the talk page of WP:WPVA if you come across any visual arts articles with FU problems, so that these can be resolved collegiately. Obviously time is needed to work through such things. Ty 15:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, I'll bear that in mind. I have seen that the visual arts WikiProject is one willing to take non-free content concerns seriously, so any issues in future I will certainly raise on the project talk page. Thanks J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought the above conversation with J Milburn, copied from our talk pages, would be worth reposting here. Ty 12:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It helps to work together; especially with the need for visual imagery here. J Milburn is an example of why the project can work. Modernist (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ernst Ludwig Kirchner

His work is now in the public domain: year of death + 70 years. For 2D work use {{PD-art-life-70}} and for 3D work use {{PD-art-70-3d}}. In the latter case, the photographer has a separate copyright. Ty 19:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

At least the 2D stuff should go on Commons surely? Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Ty 19:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, not quite sure what's going on here. The template was like this and changed in October to say it's not in PD in US. Anyone got any answers? Ty 20:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but anything qualifying for this should be on Commons anyway. Johnbod (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Art

A discussion at the Talk:Art page [8] could use some intelligent input....Modernist (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of convert in infobox painting

See discussion here. Thanks. 67.100.125.86 (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC).

Robert Brackman

I could use a hand at this page...determining what refs are valid and what refs are not..Modernist (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems under control now...Modernist (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art

FYI. Ty 03:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems very late in the day to be informing this project! The "Goal list" - compiled by who, where? - is due in 4 days. I added some stuff on the importance of proper information on the image file to the page, but am unclear about who is uploading - some museums seem to think they are, while the talk page photographers think they are. The Flickr "Guidelines for Wikipedia editors":

When using any image from this group a) the photographer must be credited b) the full object identification and credit line must be retained and c) leave a comment for the photographer so he/she knows the image has been selected to illustrate an article.

Please note, for institutions who are captioning their objects it may take a while for us to notate the proper ID and credit line. Please hold off using any images that do not include this information. If you need something captioned sooner than we are getting to it on our own, then just e-mail us and ask us to prioritize the thing you need. For those Museums not captioning all of the photographs, Wikipedia will provide a list to those Museums who will then caption the selected photos. Our overall aim is to finish captioning by the end of March.

- are a bit puzzling too. Johnbod (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I've only just spotted it and skimmed through. I didn't find it particularly clear either. Ty 05:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks for that anyway! Since I can't see work in progress on a "goals list", I put in some suggestions [9] on their talk page. Johnbod (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like there are "scavenger hunt" lists in draft form on the individual sub-pages for the museums, like here and here. They are extremely general, however, and not all museums have them. It might be good to start trolling (as in fishing) museum web sites... Lithoderm 06:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Jackson Pollock

The article needs watching....the article has suddenly brought people out of the woodwork...it needs help..today's his birthday and google is celebrating....Modernist (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Deaccessioning debate

Now that Brandeis University has decided to sell the entire collection of the Rose Art Museum, I've started work on an article about the effects of the financial crisis on Museums here. If we work quickly we may be able to get this on "In the News" while the story of the Rose Museum is still hot... The first thing I thought of is global perspective... Ty or Johnbod, have there been any widely reported deaccessions or financial troubles among museums in the UK? I've started work on the article but only because I've been out of school these last few days... I have work to do now... Lithoderm 01:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As it happens .... [10] Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. It seems to be a little early, ie in 2006, to be considered part of the '08-09 crisis. I wonder if I should focus specifically on Deaccessioning debates within recent years, or on things that could be considered part of the crisis. Is there anything more recent? Lithoderm 18:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The people at ITN didn't think it was "important enough by itself for the main page", so I'm taking Effects of the 2008-9 Global Financial Crisis on museums to DYK instead. Lithoderm 17:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

There's now a rollback link after articles on the watchlist, for those with the right, so be careful what you click! Ty 04:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Some more eyes needed at Michael Jansen (artist) and Artforum Culture Foundation

I'm having a bit of a problem with an IP at the above articles. The main issue is his attempts to continously remove tags and revert to his poorly written changes. Both articles need a great deal of work, but his changes aren't helping (English isn't his first language and his edits reflect that). I'm afraid I may be coming off as a bit heavy-handed, so some other editors' input may help to keep it looking like I'm just picking on him, or that I'm too attached to the articles as they stand. Trust me, nothing could be further from the truth. Unfortunately, this IP's efforts are not helping at the moment. freshacconci talktalk 16:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Verrocchio's David

The page on Verrocchio's David seems to be very much in error.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Verrocchio)

The dates often quoted for this sculpture are 1473-1475, some way from the dates given. Also I do not think it is correct to refer to David as 'King' at this stage of his career. 'Shepherd boy, later to become king' would be more accurate. In the 2nd paragraph 'represents' rather than 'demonstrates' would seem to be a more appropriate word. Andrew Smith Feb 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.50.77 (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You can edit the article. Be bold. See WP:REFB for how to reference. Ty 13:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Too late for boldness; I've already fixed it. But Ty is right - you don't have to ask permission. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Own stuff

This guy Rodin777 (talk · contribs) is adding his own work to various articles, like George Bernard Shaw, Rembrandt, etc. I've asked him to stop...Modernist (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on this issue here. I've never been too certain what the policy is around this. freshacconci talktalk 17:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've left them all in place pending the outcome of any consensus opinion with the exception of his portrait of Rembrandt which I deleted and warned him about..The Rembrandt addition is gratuitous and irrelevant...to say the least..Modernist (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've proposed language for the WP:COI policy that would address how to handle this. Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Wikipedia:COI.23Photographs_and_media_files. THF (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That looks reasonable. As I said at WP:COIN, I think the one at Eric Morecambe is an asset to the article, as the existing main photo isn't brilliant and is also non-free. But when articles already have good images, especially iconic ones like Rembrandt's self-portraits, these self-created ones are definitely gratuitous.

But case-by-case... And consensus on aesthetic/informative value might be the way to go. For example, I think the Noel Coward one's extremely good, but the Olivier doesn't look much like him, and the Ken Dodd is outright gruesome. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

They are all basically bad...the user refuses to discuss anything and all should be removed...Modernist (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. As in previous cases (three in the last year I think), I think they should all be removed. There is often a copyright implication, as they are copied from, and therefore derivitive works of, photos in copyright. This trend should just be stamped on, I think, or we will have computer-fiddled works all over the place. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he does appear to be a professional artist [11]. I think the ones listed on his website as personal commissions by the sitter are ok to leave, if not too unappealing. Eg Eric Morecombe & a few others. Why he can't just write an over the top biography of himself like everybody else .... Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed most of them..you can put a few back..Modernist (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Blanking by User:TravisNygard

This editor TravisNygard (talk · contribs) - is engaged in a MAJOR blanking of History of art and Art History. Modernist (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

New pages deleted as copyvios (you can't just copy content across without attribution), user warned and asked to take the issue to the talk page. Looking to make sure I haven't missed anything now. J Milburn (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input...J Milburn, appreciated....Modernist (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Visualization being narrowed in scope

Someone who has time and patience should check out what's going on with the Template talk:Visualization#Reorganize. Look at what's been removed from the template [12]. I'm burned out on these kind of disputes. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Stella Vine again

Comments are invited at Talk:Stella Vine#Article neutrality. Please post on that page, not this one. Ty 16:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox art group

Comments invited at Template talk:Infobox Art Group. Please post on that page, not this one. Ty 18:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sacred Cod of Massachusetts

The Flickr image- now that's resolved

Hi, I have recently updated and expanded the Sacred Cod of Massachusetts article which falls under this Wikiproject. It is one of the many articles out there that is Unassessed and I am looking for some input on how to make it better. I know the article still needs a picture of the Cod, but unfortunatly I can not take one myself. Any input or help would be great.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This image should be a start. There is a better image on flickr, but it is under a no derivative works license, so I have contacted the author to request that he tweak the license so that it can be uploaded. Lithoderm 19:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I had that picture in the article, as it was there when i started working on it, but the other day someone removed it becasue they said the copyright wasnt correct or something. I dont know much about copyright issues so i just assumed they knew more than me... is it ok to put it back in the article?--Found5dollar (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for now. It is low resolution enough and is discussed in enough detail that it meets Fair Use policy. It was removed by a bot because it had no FU tag or rationale, which I have added. Once we get the higher resolution image, this one can be deleted. Lithoderm 20:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The use of that image is not within our non-free content criteria, as it could easily be replaced. What's to stop someone taking a picture of it and uploading it under a free license? J Milburn (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, it is not replaceable until I can get someone from Boston to take a picture of it. I have made a reasonable attempt to acquire a free image from flickr, but there are no files there under an applicable license. Therefore I have petitioned one of the uploaders of a file to adjust the license. I have no response, and in the meantime there is no replacement. I am currently combing the internet for an alternative... Lithoderm 21:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This image was made by an employee of the government, so it may fall under ineligibility for copyright. Lithoderm 21:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A non-free image cannot be used if it is replaceable, not replaced. The fact that there are currently no free images available does not automatically mean that a non-free image can be used. The ineligibility applies only to works of the federal government- the image on the page you linked was created by a member of Massachusetts State Government, and it seems that they do not place their material into the public domain. J Milburn (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone from Boston will see what she can do. No promises, though. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz. JMilburn, feel free to remove the image and/or list it for deletion. I need to return to class... Lithoderm 21:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to start a fair use battle over here... sorry. I was just looking for someone to review the article.--Found5dollar (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, when reading the article, the first thing I wonder is "Why?". It might be good to put a sentence in the intro that forecasts what is said in the Symbolism section. Some more printed references might be nice, too. I wasn't initially sure what is meant by commercial extinction; it appears to mean that the species is too rare to catch profitably[13], but I had to look it up, so a footnote might be nice. The bare urls in the references section should be corrected. Those are some minor things I notice at first glance; I will read it more thoroughly when I have time. Lithoderm 22:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The author of the Flickr image has generously changed the license, so I have uploaded it and placed it in the article. Lithoderm 21:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC) :Or I would, but I gave it the same name as the wikipedia file... (Slaps forehead) I've asked Tyrenius to delete the file so that I can insert the commons image... If any other admin sees this, they should feel free to boldly delete it... Lithoderm 21:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC) I fixed it myself... Lithoderm 22:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Picture Galleries

I was doing some minor editing on the Uffizi article and noticed that the gallery section had this tag on it: {{cleanup-gallery}} Certainly it is an "image gallery", and I think such galleries are are entirely justified in an article such as this, about the Uffizi Gallery. Is it ok to remove the tag? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Done..Modernist (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's justified. Ty 02:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Galleries in layout

A discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Layout#re:_Placement_of_image_galleries. Post on that page, not this one. Ty 04:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps m ore significantly, there is a very sensible proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#One_more_try_with_galleries... to reword that guideline. Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I added my comments there...Modernist (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Some eyes on Open House Arts Collective

This article was up for deletion, which was closed as no consensus. I don't fault the closing admin. on that decision. However, one of my concerns had been a COI with this organization's "press officer" editing and essentially treating wiki as a promotional arm for the group. As I was involved with the deletion process (as an unambiguous "delete" and nominator) I'm thinking I'm now too close to the subject in a sense. In short, I'm afraid my motives may be suspect if I pop in and do some editing and in particular if I broach the COI issue again. The article's text right now reads closer to a press release, particularly some upcoming events. I have no interest in listing this for deletion again at this point. My opinion on the matter is pretty clear. If another editor could have a look and do some clean-up, it would be helpful. Since the article's creator is a member of the group and another editor is a board member and press officer, the COI is pretty clear, but I'd prefer not to be the one to bring it up again at this point. freshacconci talktalk 02:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll watchlist, but there is no need for you to refrain from normal editing on the article in line with policy. Ty 02:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Native American art

...is up and sort of running. It took longer than I said it would, but is still kind of Gallery-esque. I'd be greatly obliged if anyone would take an interest... I've notified some other WikiProjects as well. Lithoderm 06:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Christmas light sculpture

It looks like Christmas is coming early this year... I don't want to get involved in a ridiculous argument like this, so I'll just nom it for deletion and expect your support... Lithoderm 06:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• I nominate Ty (sorry)! Johnbod (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Seconded..provided Ty agrees...Modernist (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have to decline. I can't take on anything else. I was thinking of Johnbod (sorry)! Ty 09:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I'll do it if someone will second that, or even third it (elected by acclamation!) Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll second that, as long as you'll still have time for writing articles. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• I signed up. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Cotterill

Ikip (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Kentee Suone Pasek

Artist appears to be writing about herself, and has inserted her name and/or links to her website in broader topic articles. Notwithstanding the many refs provided, I don't think significance has been established, and I've placed a speedy delete tag on the article, and issued warnings re: spamming and conflict of interest. Some input would be welcome. 99.184.128.247 (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Newly tagged articles

Just a heads up that I tagged George Washington (Greenough) & Victims of Communism Memorial with your project. APK How you durrin? 18:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

NFCC images sizes

RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#RfC:_Which_size_should_bots_be_resizing_images_to_to_comply_with_NFCC.3F. Leave any comments on that page, not this one. Ty 13:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

New Taskforce

There is currently a new taskforce being setted up at WP:GLASS within the WikiProject Physics. However, it seems to me that it should at the same time also be within the WikiProject Visual arts, based on many articles that are already within the WikiProject Visual arts such as Glass art. A glass related category of interst for artist might be Category: Glass art, including the art works themselves and many artist personalities. Is there any opposition to adding a link to WP:GLASS on the WikiProject Visual arts page? Do you have other suggestion or ideas? You are very welcome to contribute. Thanks...--Afluegel (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Robert Mihaly

Any thoughts on this? It's an interesting article to say the least. Before I go at it, I'd like some feedback. freshacconci talktalk 21:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The template you added looks justified: peacock, neutrality, and essay tone are all apparent. The author appears to be promoting the artist by inserting him into numerous articles, which smells like spam... JNW (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like an admin's take on this: I've reverted a few such edits, like the addition to the Bernanke bio, but I am almost certain they will be reversed by the author. Ty's thoughts would be welcome. JNW (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted some more and posted on User_talk:Michelangeloh. The first stage is to inform the user of the relevant policies, which as a new user he will be unaware of. Hopefully this will bring about the correct understanding. In the meantime, Robert Mihaly should be edited "ruthlessly" to conform to policy requirements. It may be useful to post on the article talk page about this. Ty 23:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just added the notability tag to the article. (Found only 101 unique google hits [14]. Some of the work is nice but the artist is not notable and does not warrant an article. I'm sure the creator did it in good faith but, for me leaast ways, it should go. Setwisohi (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Some work has gone on to improve the article. But I've put it out for AfD to get consensus. Artist-type experts comments would be most welcome. Setwisohi (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

List of 250 "most famous" paintings

This is interesting, a list of the 250 paintings most commonly reproduced or referred to across 21 art history survey books (wikified on my user space here; note how it's mostly red links). I find some of the inclusions very odd and it's clearly biased towards works in the USA, but it shows up a few important omissions on Wikipedia, most notably Deposition (Rogier van der Weyden). Others include Artemisia Gentileschi's Judith Slaying Holofernes, Whistler's Symphony in White, No. 1: The White Girl and Kokoschka's Bride of the Wind. A good portion of the list could be transferred to Requested Articles. Ham 12:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A search for "greatest paintings" produces a number of lists. WP does have one such list, as 100 Great Paintings. I worry a little about "most popular" lists. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes well, its an interesting list all the same. Thanks you for posting this, Ham. Ceoil (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Image publication date

A key point. See: Template_talk:PD-US#Published_definition. Ty 22:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is right though. I've commented there. Johnbod (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I also made a comment there...but I'm not exactly clear about the pre-1923 PD date..I have Matisse's from 1904, 1905 and 1914 on my page...assuming they had been published here...Modernist (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for bot resizing of FU images

I've posted about this earlier. It has implications for every FU image in use. Comments at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Sub-proposal_in_order_to_set_the_above. Ty 01:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Need help placing portraits

Hi all. Recently about 3000 high-resolution, high-quality portraits of famous English people (mostly 16-19th century nobility) were added to Commons in Commons:Category:National Portrait Gallery, London. The most difficult part of integrating these images into Wikipedia is finding appropriate articles to add them to and inserting them appropriately. For the ones I'm not sure about, I use {{announce-image}} to notify users on the talk page. I've already done this with a great many of them (roughly from the beginning up through Henry Brouncker in alphabetical order) but I need help to do the rest. Please assist me in placing these images here and on other-language Wikipedias. Thank you! Dcoetzee 10:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Spam or not

Concerning the Getty program and recent contributions of User:Mybihonteem: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Mybihonteem Valuable or self-promotional? In particular, these links were just added to artists' biographies leading to library records - are these useful? I noticed them yesterday and I received a question about them today...any opinions would be helpful. I think they are marginal and appear useless and spamlike to me...Modernist (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

They are currently high-class spam. The Getty ULAN is a fantastic resource which I very often use as a reference, as it is the authoritative source for the name, place & dates of birth & death, & also good for nationality, family relationships to other artists etc. And all free online. It's essential for earlier artists. But it should be added as a ref to the DOB etc (after checking the details agree), as it has nothing else - the bibliography bit is just various standard reference works consulted. They are no use as external links - far too specific - but as references they are fine. Johnbod (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If it is valuable, keep it. Wikipedians have to make value judgements. : ) Bus stop (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In terms of information, it is not valuable. All it tells you is what is normally in the first sentence of the article. In terms of referencing those basic facts it often is valuable. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what they appear to me to be - somewhat useless as article information, but as you say a reliable source for referencing...Modernist (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. It seems reasonably, sanely interesting to me. Nothing is free of money-interests. I would make a value judgement. As I am unfamiliar with this, I would defer to others. But I wouldn't stick so closely to Wikipedia rules as to hinder providing the reader with a useful resource, if it is that. Bus stop (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Can a special note be placed next to certain external links? Something such as: (commercial resource; included because in the opinion of some editors found to contain useful information). Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Its not commercial, but you haven't explained why repeating such limited details is useful as an external link, which is supposed to add information not in the article. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation of information? I don't know. Is an external link's purpose limited to adding information that is not already in the article? If so, then leave it out. I find there is a dearth of information that is reliable about a lot of things. And there is occasionally contradictory information. And there is occasionally information open to interpretation, such as where or when an artist was active, and other artists to whom that artist is related (I assume by type of work produced). If the information is considered especially reliable, which I assume it is since 2 editors say that they use that site, then I guess I think there is no harm in leaving it in. The decision comes down to, in my opinion: would leaving it in or taking it out make the encyclopedia more useful? I'm not arguing for leaving it in or taking it out. (Though I slightly more think it should be left in.) If it is clutter, that is only going to waste people's time, then clearly it should be removed. But I don't know. Bus stop (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you are right -- that it should just be included as a reference to date of birth, etc. I just read your point concerning that. I wasn't even really familiar with it. Sorry for butting in. Bus stop (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Museum/Galleries/Institutions in scope of project?

I'm in the process of adding Visual arts templates to articles that have the old Contemporary art templates so the latter can ultimately be retired. However a number of those articles are Museums/Galleries/Institutions and I am not sure these are actually in the scope of our project ... at least I see no explicit mention on the project page. Are they? And if no, should they be? Enki H. (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

IMO They are in the scope of our project...a few already have the template. Adding them is helpful in the long run. Modernist (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Enki H. (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Inherited Pages from "Contemporary Art"

I've completed adding Visual arts templates to all pages that link to the Contemporary art project, thus bringing them all into Visual arts; I propose that the Contemporary Art templates could now be retired from the respective talk pages. Perhaps some editors with affinity to any of those articles would like to remove the template case by case? I'll bring up the proposal in a few weeks to take out the remaining ones. oK? Enki H. (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

VG Braun-Dusemond

Anybody ever hear of this person? I suspect a hoax...Modernist (talk) 11:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ho-hum. The only web refs I can see are all about/by his daughter, who ppresumably wrote this. comment, talk at Imperial War Museum, comment. All from the last 3 months. But is he notable? Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I can accept the daughters statements as to his existence; notability is another question...Modernist (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

For some reason the articles assessed as Category or C class show up in the unassessed page. ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall that the project ever agreed to have a C-class, but various drive-bys seem to have decided we should. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added C class on occasion; thinking that we should use it as an intermediary between start and B which should be pretty well developed...Modernist (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Since the WikiProject box links to Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment, there is indeed an inconsistency. Either C-class should be recognized as a category (as implied by the link), or a project-specific assessment scale needs to replace it. E.g. Biography has its own scale with the advantage that it includes project-specific exemplars. Enki H. (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I think we should add C class to our lexicon...Modernist (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've no particular problem with that, but someone needs to set up the categories & whatever. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a protected template ... I'm setting the process in motion. ("C" is actually already in the template doc.). Enki H. (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Change requested. According to my understanding of the mechanics, once the code is changed, the Category page will be autopopulated from the templates. The statistics box on the project page is a template that is updated by a robot due to circulate tomorrow. It should reflect matters correctly if the admins get around to changing the template in time.Enki H. (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It just got done - the system has updated the Category page and we have 101 articles in there. Enki H. (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Good job, well done and thanks....Modernist (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you  :) ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well done both. Johnbod (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Any way to add the C category to the Visual Arts article statistics on the project's mainpage?ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a template including Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Visual_arts_articles_by_quality_statistics; I believe it will be updated by a bot that according to history runs every four days or so. Enki H. (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it also doesn't seem to have a List class, any way to add this? ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I see, you've classed List_of_contemporary_art_museums as "list" in the Visual arts box. That makes it appear in Category:List-Class_articles but the bot won't know that you want it as a Category:List-Class_Visual_arts_articles; and that category seems not to exist. If there's consensus that that category should be created, it would take another edit to the box-template to change the mechanics... possible, yes. Important? Enki H. (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The only proviso I would add is that if you do create a "List" class, someone should go over the other extant articles that are lists and add them to that class as well. For what it might be worth, there are any number of other "NA" classes as well. If anyone here would want to add them, or would want any help in adjusting the banner to accomodate them, let me know and I'll do what I can. John Carter (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Category/subcategory/sub-sub... ?

Over the last hours User:Bearcat has re-categorized a number of Canadian artists. For example, Janet Cardiff or Ian Carr-Harris no longer appear in Category:Installation artists but in Category:Canadian installation artists which is itself a subcategory of Category:Installation artists by nationality i.e. two levels removed from generic installation artists. I get a sense that this at odds with WP:CATEGORY regarding distinguished categories, but whether "nationality" falls into that definition should probably be vetted by the Project. Extended to the "big picture" of art categories, a consensus would be helpful regarding

• categories proper, in which articles appear only in the most specific category,
• intermediate categories, which don't contain articles, and
• distinguished categories which group articles according to some common aspect without removing them from the parent category.

Thoughts? Enki H. (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"Distinguished" categorization refers to categorizing people by award, not by nationality (for instance, the potential for "Academy Award winning actors" to ghettoize people out of Category:American film actors if they were considered mutually exclusive categories). Subcategorzing by nationality is always acceptable and does not fall under the "distinguished" criterion — there's no real reason why this should be any different than Category:Painters or Category:Sculptors, which are subcategorized thoroughly by nationality.

For what it's worth, I don't think Category:Installation artists by nationality itself is, strictly speaking, necessary at a time when only a few nationality subcats have actually been split out thus far; we could quite easily move its subcategories back up to Category:Installation artists until such time as there are enough national categories to actually warrant it. But it already existed, and I didn't create it. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I see your point above; the question really is about categorizing an artist with an eminently international body of work according to the country they happen to have been born in; or moved to; or otherwise carrying the passport of... Subcategorizing according to style, or period, or movement or anything that clarifies contents or helps users discover significant relationships, I agree to that. But nationality? This is why I think discussing this more broadly might be worthwhile. Enki H. (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

One could use the exact same argument to undo absolutely any attempt to subcategorize anything on Wikipedia. Firstly, Category:Canadian artists needs to be diffused by artistic medium — or else the only subcategorization scheme would be by province, which is a bit too obscure, in a "who really knows where most artists are from?" sort of way, to be the only scheme in place. And artists aren't actually any different from practitioners of any other occupation in this regard — musicians have careers with every bit as much potential for a transnational audience as artists do, but we still subcategorize them by nationality instead of lumping them all together into undifferentiated "musicians" categories. Writers have every bit as much international exposure as artists do, but we still subcategorize them by nationality instead of lumping them all together into undifferentiated "writers" categories. And on, and so forth. Artists aren't unique in this regard. Bearcat (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem a very desirable category to me - only Canada, Ireland & Singapore have national installation artists category. There is a strong argument that they ought to be in the head national category as well, thus completely removing the diffusion argument. Most of these categories like multi-media/installation/mixed media/poster/conceptual artists etc are too narrow to be an artist's only category. A more useful category, which doesn't exist, would be Category:Canadian contemporary artists, which would cut down the main cat hugely. There are hardly any national ones of these, which is odd. In general we have much too little categorization of artists by period/school & much too much by genre, it seems to me. Johnbod (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how a national installation artists category is any less desirable than a national painters, sculptors or photographers category. What is one supposed to do if one wants to see a grouping of, say, specifically Canadian artists working within the genre of installation art? And I also fail to see how genre subcategorization is any less desirable here than it is for writers or musicians — nor is there any reason why the head national category needs to function as an undiffused list of all Canadian artists without regard to any subcategorization that may or may not be in place, either. Categorization by school and genre can coexist quite easily, too — there's no reason why one has to preclude the other. Bearcat (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Do they all spend their whole careers just doing installations? It seems a bit unlikely. Canadian writers, unusually, are just as sub-categorized as this - their categories are also rather bizarre - lots of ethnic ones, sex, sexual orientation, and nothing in the main cats. Maybe its a Canadian thing, but I think pigeon-holing artists like this is not a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason why anybody would or should want a massive, undifferentiated, 14-pages-long category of Category:Canadian writers that offered no way to group out people who specifically wrote poetry or science fiction or children's books. And there's absolutely no reason why anybody would or should want a massive, undifferentiated category of Category:Canadian artists that offered no way to winnow down the particular type of art that a person produced. While there's no technical reason why we can't have a category with 1,000 or more entries anymore, there's still an end user reason why categories of that size aren't desirable: the sheer size makes the category less useful, not more. And there's nothing "bizarre" about the way Canadian writers are subcategorized, either — every last byte of it is the result of careful and thorough and extensive discussion and consensus around how Wikipedia wants writers to be categorized. The only difference between Category:Canadian writers and any other national writers category that hasn't been subcategorized is that people have actually put in the effort to implement the scheme that's fully intended by both policy and consensus, as well as the ongoing time needed to keep it cleaned up, not that Canada has any different rules or needs for categorization than any other country does. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that a national category of whatever is not desirable. I'm saying that it does not define anything relevant about an artist in the sense that the parent category should no longer apply (well, maybe Norman Rockwell is a counterexample). IMO "national" should be used like a distinguished category - used in addition to the main category, but not to its exclusion. This is not the Olympics, after all. If the main category gets too large, split it alphabetically. I also think there are too many cases that simply defy such categorization outright; think of Kabakov for example. Russian? He only even started making installations after he left Russia in the eighties. Don't you think there must be a more meaningful way to categorize artists? Enki H. (talk) 04:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the categorisation by nationality is useful for the installation artists, where it's difficult to subdivide the category in any other way. On the face of I don't think subdividing the parent cat Contemporary Artists according to nationality is particularly useful, but then the Venice Biennale has been doing it for years. Subdividing Contemporary artists solely by genre does have its problems: many artists are interdisciplinary, some have no discipline at all, and where do all those photographers go who are generally considered contemporary artists?--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Not all multidisciplinary artists are notable in all their disciplines; but if they are, they should be listed in more than one category. Regarding installation artists, I wonder why a subcategorization is needed in the first place? If someone wants to be able to find Canadian installation artists, they can always make a list - that's what lists are for. Category policy explicitly states that subcategories should not remove contents when the article subject has a relevance to the parent category that is not expressed by the subcategory's definition.(WP:CLN) It should help, not impede, finding relevant contents. Enki H. (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

A person who's notable as both a photographer and a painter would be categorized as both a photographer and a painter. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I meant people like Jeff Wall or Andreas Gursky who are photographers, but whose work is considered contemporary art (featured in contemporary art museums, in books about contemporary art etc.). At the moment Contemporary Artist is the only cat that covers the fact that they're artists who also happen to be photographers. My point is that there is no generic subcategory for contemporary artists working with photography, although maybe 'Contemporary artists working with photography'...--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue of duplicate categorization pertains here; specifically, the categorization policy has an explicit injunction against "vertical" categorization (i.e. subcategory + parent) except in cases where the subcategory is defining a special class, such as winners of a particular award. The problem with deeming this situation as some kind of special case when it comes to duplicate categorization is that the exact same rationale can also be used to insist on Category:Canadian painters + Category:Painters + Category:Canadian artists + Category:Artists + Category:Art + Category:Canadian people + Category:People. So one category has now turned into seven, which is undesirable for a whole host of reasons. It's a rationale that completely obliterates any possibility of drawing any line to distinguish "duplicate categorization that we want" from "duplicate categorization that we don't want". Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly: to quote WP:SUBCAT - Not all subcategories serve this systematic "breaking down" function; some are simply subsets which have some characteristic of interest, such as Best Actor Academy Award winners as a subcategory of Film actors, Toll bridges in New York City as a subcategory of Bridges in New York City, and Musical films as a subcategory of Musicals. These are called distinguished subcategories. The point I am making is: IMO nationality in the context of installation artists is not the defining feature it may be in other contexts. I'll leave it at that. Enki H. (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's no more or less defining than it is for writers, musicians, physicists, criminals, priests, architects, journalists, dancers, chess players, theatre directors, fashion models, shipbuilders, conservationists, choreographers or any of the hundreds of other occupations that are subcategorized by nationality. There's nothing that makes this different from any other occupation in regards to the value of national subcategorization, nor is there anything that makes this a special context in which duplicate categorization is somehow more necessary than it is for any other occupation. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

To my mind the problem is not "Canadian" but "installation artist", and these other inappropritely salami-sliced "genres". When you look at the actual articles, people in this category are also in or not "video/multi-media/sound/conceptual etc artists" categories more or less at random, as far as one can tell from their articles, not to mention other categories - Betty Goodwin is in 5. One "comporary" category would be a better way to handle this, imo. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This, I could potentially agree with, given that much contemporary art fits several of these subcategories at the same time. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

...and the reality is that many contemporary artist bios are over-categorised. Not because contemporary art is a special case that resists categorisation (by nationality or genre), but because many categories exist for contemporary artists. If WP had existed in the late 1940s and early 1950s Jackson Pollock might be in Category:Action Artists (doesn't exist) and Category:Gestural Painters (doesn't exist) as well as Category:Abstract Expressionist Painters (does exist). The proliferation of generic identities is not unique to contemporary art, it's just that WP is being compiled at the same time as the generic categories.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It's more that we have so many contemporary artists, & far more conflict of interest editing, which often leads to piling-on of categories. We don't even have Category:Fresco painters or Category:History painters, nor should we. Johnbod (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, COI is probably the main cause.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion should be copied to the Category:Contemporary Artists page or the Category:Installation Artists talk page.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sistine Chapel ceiling GAR

I have taken up this review during GA Sweeps because I expect that it will be successfully saved. Sistine Chapel ceiling has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought I would give a final delist warning. The article has made tremendous progress. However, my primary concern was referencing and a toal of 16 paragraphs remain uncited. The article has gone unchanged for a week. Please comment quickly on the GA discussion page if you intend to make further improvements.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I requested that citations be added at Sistine Chapel ceiling. It seems a bunch of new references to primary sources (the images themselves) have been added. I know for some subjects primary source references are common, but I have not seen art articles with such a preponderance of primary references. Let me know if this is Kosher.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Automated extraction of Zoomified images

Lots of musuems like to use Zoomify to store their images. Extracting them to a usable image is tedious and time consuming. I think I've got a better way. See Talk:List_of_works_by_Thomas_Eakins#Notes Raul654 (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing articles about sculptors linked from List of papal tombs

This article contains several redlinks to sculptors, some of whom are quite important. If you are interested in creating articles about these sculptors, that list has some seed information, sources, and images, which you may find useful. Savidan 03:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Vickers de Ville

Bringing this here, before I get tagged for 3RR: User apparently is promoting this artist [15] by inserting his name prominently into several art history overviews. Any help appreciated. JNW (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Bambuco Bridge

I tagged the article Bambuco Bridge as being within the scope of this WikiProject. As previously written, the article implied that this structure was a real bridge (one had to read beyond the lede to find out that it was an outdoor sculpture and it was never intended/used for people or vehicles to cross the river).

Would someone here be interested in changing the Infobox from one that has to do with bridges to one that has to do with sculpture? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually the headings in the bridges one seem more appropriate, regardless of the work's functionality. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Burney Relief

Major rewrite, would appreciate some feedback ... rating? Thanks! Enki H. (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Great work! I weighed in with a B but probably deserves higher...A, or GA, at least...Modernist (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox trouble

A recent change to the Artwork infobox template is throwing out a Unexpected operator: Expression error: Unexpected msg is bold red text; example here. Anybody know how to located the template and revert whatever well-meaning edit caused this. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• The trouble derives from a innocent redirect of Template:Infobox Painting to Template:Infobox Artwork, but I don't know how to correct it.--RPD (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect over a redirect. Admin needed. Ceoil (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed a troubled infobox here: Saint Serapion (Zurbarán), for now..Modernist (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what's going on here, or how to fix it. Unless someone provides instructions. As an aside, it seems the artwork title now floats above the infobox, rather than being contained within it. Ty 03:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am also puzzled as to how to begin to figure it out...I tried finding a better rhino box but it's out of whack all the way back it seems to this July 18, 2006 edit by User:Ham [16] .User:Ham was the editor who added the infobox here: Saint Serapion (Zurbarán) the other day...Modernist (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest reverting the redirects from Template:Infobox Painting and Template:Artwork for the time being. Ty 04:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• See my remark at Template talk:Infobox Painting: The editor, Chris Cunningham (not at work), is evidently an expert and should be able to redo the mess he created. --RPD (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Chris Cunningham (not at work) to weigh in here...Modernist (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted it to a working version and added a testcase. Enki H. (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry folks. Discussion of the style issues (such as the floating html <caption> for the title) would probably be best kept to the infobox template discussion page though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad this is fixed; I got here as soon as I could (I must be in a different time zone to the rest of you). Please don't think anything untoward in my adding of the templates. Ham 11:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request on my talk page, I added WikiProject Visual arts to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. I can also get provide the full data for any project covered by the bot if requested, though I normally don't keep it for much longer than a couple weeks after the list is generated. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 04:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating! I love such reality checks. Who in the world is Lady Gaga and why is she in Visual Arts? Why does Mary Cassat have as many hits as pretty much all other Impressionists combined? Who thought that Google Streetview is an Art Project? Or the arkane mathematics of tesselations? And - with a stretch - I get "Pin-up girl" – but Playmate? Isn't that stretching it a bit beyond the elastic limit? And a list of Crayola Crayon Color's, 133 of them and that's not even counting the scents... and .. and . Lovely. Enki H. (talk) 05:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added a link to this to the project page. I've removed some articles from the project (Google Street View, Playmate etc) but left Lady Gaga as a reality check & horrible warning (she has been topical though). Should these be covered by this project: a) Architects (Vanbrugh, Borromini etc, b) photos by NASAS etc of or from space (Blue marble & others? I suspect not. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've updated quite a few VA ratings considering...I guess Lady GaGa is bigger than Picasso, Da Vinci and Michelangelo combined...and she's only 23. I wonder where she'll be when she's 70?..Modernist (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, William Blake is higher up than I'd have thought. (More so than the Sistene Chapel?) I really need to take another look at that article. Lithoderm 04:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

VA featured list nom

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Turner Prize winners and nominees/archive1. Ty 03:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Jean-Paul Riopelle

Comments regarding legal battles between Riopelle's life partner and children needs editing. Joan Mitchell, who is commonly recognized as his life partner, died in 1992. 10 years before Riopelle died. This comment is flagged as needing a citation, but it also needs extra info for clarification or deletion. Talli.M. (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I can do some research and expand and cite this. freshacconci talktalk 10:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I can find, this dispute is between Riopelle's children and Huguette Vachon, his companion at the time of this death (described in some sources as his widow, although there's no indication they were married, most likely common-law). Mitchell and Riopelle ended their relationship in 1979 (another source says 1988, which I doubt). Huguette Vachon, the executor of his estate, seems to be alive and this is who the dispute concerns (which involves an auction of 44 of his works). However, it's difficult to find anything substantial and since this does concern some living people, I'll remove that section for now. This article needs expanding anyway, and if I find something significant , I'll restore, expand and cite this section. freshacconci talktalk 12:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Found something from the CBC--I will continue this at the talk page for the article in question. freshacconci talktalk 13:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: removal of "Contemporary Art" boxes

For discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Contemporary_Art#Removal of Project boxes -- Enki H. (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Commented there...Modernist (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup listing added

Autogenerated cleanup listings for Project articles are now linked from the project page ... Wikipedia:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Cleanup_listing. Enki H. (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Cloud Gate FAC4

Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cloud Gate/archive4.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Vincent van Gogh GAR notification

Vincent van Gogh has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is fine. Its a great article - probably should be upgraded to FA as is...Modernist (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Gustave Courbet

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gustave_Courbet#Caution_to_undergraduates_with_papers_due

This article is a mess. Where it is not simply reductive and repetitive, it is downright wrong. It misses almost everything important about Courbet and the dates are a mess. Notice that most statements are unsourced. If you were to turn in a paper based on this wiki article, and your prof. knew anything at all about Courbet, you would fail. Hopefully someone with more time than I will come along and fix the thing. Until then, good luck. Saudade7 00:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree the article needs work. Could you possibly find the time to be specific about dates? Could you recommend reference materials? Thank you. --sparkit^TALK 04:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

To visual arts editors from sparkit

For such an important artist we really could produce a much better article than we now have. This Smithsonian article that is linked in the wikipedia article is quite informative. Recently I read Seigel's Bohemian Paris and he writes quite a bit about Courbet, but it's the only book resource I have on the topic.

Anyhow, you all game for punching this article up a notch or two? --sparkit^TALK 04:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged it with warning templates. Ty 12:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The article does need a lot of help and the Smithsonian link is an excellent read...Modernist (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Boca Raton Museum of Art edits

A user, 66.184.162.58, has been adding links in artist articles to the Boca Raton Museum of Art, apparently for every artist in the museum's collection. While this may be appropriate for a few little-known artists whose work is not displayed anywhere else, in most cases I find it to be very inappropriate. When an artist's work is in the collections of the Louvre, the Metropolitan Museum, the Hermitage, MoMA, the Tate and many others, I think it's almost laughable to start a Public Collections section and list only the Boca Raton Museum of Art. Sometimes the user adds the information to an existing list of much more renowned museums. I think that most of these edits should be reverted. 75.4.237.200 (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, for common artists, or unless there is already one of those tiresome & unreliable lists. Oddly, there is no list at the Museum's article, which would be much more acceptable. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Martin Wolk

Am I right to think this is a hoax? I've nominated it for deletion, but some more knowing eyes would be appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)