User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Breaking
BTW, I've overhauled Breaking (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ 17:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Greatest hits
Yea, I never really liked the formatting on the page, so I finally took the plunge and cleaned it up. I think your stuff on the discussion page is good. As for the page being sectioned out, I think it's OK as it is, with one long list. Joltman 17:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Just thought you should know - answers.com is a Wikipedia mirror. It's not the primary source for the Wacker article; what they have is simply a copy of Wikipedia's article. --Davepape 20:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- No problem - just wanted to clarify my edit. You're right about the idea of those redirects; I'll take a look back and update my other contribs (now that I'm pretty much done clearing fallen trees). --Davepape 00:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Seymour Knox dab
Indeed nothing inherantly wrong with an article on such a painting. I doubt you can write an article on the painting that will survive deletion, but that belief on my part should be the last reason for you to consider not writing it. (I have been wrong before, and it could happen a 2nd time [wink].) I'd prefer to see the article appear before the Dab entry reappears, but that ain' no big thang.
--Jerzy•t 18:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You responded:
- Additionally, placing this on the dab page with the proper wikilink disambiguates which Seymour Knox is the subject of the portrait.
TonyTheTiger 19:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
A good thing, if we expect an article on the painting (or an article that says something more interesting than the name, subject, artist, year, and location), but not a good thing on the Dab page if there is not an article expected. (Notable portraits, i.e., those significant enuf for more mention than that, are rare, even when their models are notable.) Otherwise, that kind of info belongs IMO only in the model's bio page, and on lists, e.g., of paintings
- in a given gallery,
- by an given artist, or
- depicting people known for other reasons than as the model,
or of people notable for appearing in paintings.
--Jerzy•t 19:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughts. I guess you are saying that a dab page should disambiguate all likely wikipedia uses of a phrase as opposed to all likely uses by wikipedians of a phrase. Is that it in a nutshell.
- Also, you imply that there are high standards for portraits. It annoys me that such common bands can get albums pages that aren't deleted and you would tell me that an Andy Warhol of a notable wikipedia article subject from a family of likenamed notable wikipedia article subjects does not in your opinion belong on a wikipedia dab unless an article is forthcoming and that such an article is likely to be unnotable. What are the standards for paintings? Would a Warhol Campbell's Soup Can or Warhol Marilyn Monroe get deleted? Do you know of this having happened? What about similarly significant work? Do you think there is enough info on the following page to generate a lasting wikipedia page Portrait of Seymour Knox
--[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 22:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
_ _ I'm sorry if i confused you.
_ _ Dab pages exist to deal with the situation where XYZ would be both the ideal title for article 1, and the ideal title for article 2, except that it can't be the title of both. They are also useful (without compromising that fundamental mission) where XYZ is likely to be casually used as a title for article 3, even tho there is a better title for article 3; in that case we are likely to include the title of article 3 on the Dab page, often in a "See also" section. Articles that don't exist on WP often get Dab entries if those articles are likely to meet are standards for retention of articles, including notability of the topic, because it helps solicit the writing of those articles, without substantially interfering in the fundamental mission of the corresponding Dab. On the other hand, articles not likely to be retained if written shouldn't get Dab entries, bcz WP is neither a dictionary nor a guide to non-notable information, and such entries would interfere with Dab pages by cluttering them without any corresponding benefit to WP's purpose.
_ _ Not all paintings, nor all paintings by a given artist, are equally notable, and i made a WAG that Portrait of Seymour Knox (a better title for the article than Seymour Knox) is not as notable as the two paintings you mention. Let's go beyond a WAG, and see whether your expectation that all three be treated equally, and your objection to my tentative position, are reasonable: : G-tests on
- Warhol "Campbell's Soup"
- 762 of about 85,800 (which means 85K pages, with 76% of the most significant thousand differing significantly rather than appearing to be clones of another of the first thousand)
- Warhol "Marilyn Monroe"
- 803 of about 538,000
- Warhol "Seymour Knox"
- 17 of about 21 (which means that there are about 21 pages, 17 of them looking unique)
This does not prove that Portrait of Seymour Knox is non-notable, but it presents you with a huge presumption of non-notability that should be rebutted before pursuing your desire for a Dab entry for that portrait.
_ _ (I'm not sure whether we have articles on those two notable paintings, or sections on them within larger articles, but the level of Web interest in them would be evidence that i would offer in voting Keep on either article, if i became involved in corresponding AfD debates.)
_ _ I hope this helps clarify the intentions of what i said before.
--Jerzy•t 04:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- _ _ Great explanation of the purpose of a dab page. It will make me rethink most of my dab pages. Your inference that Portrait of Seymour Knox should get equal treatment with the "Campbell's Soup" and "Marilyn Monroe" did not mean I felt it was equally notable, just worthy of similary notability consideration. If neither of these has an article or even article section, neither should "Seymour Knox". However, if neither of these is absent because it has been unsuccessful in an AfD discussion, then I am not sure what conclusion to draw. I think that as you mentioned
- _ _ In your response you mentioned G-tests on
- Warhol "Campbell's Soup"
- 762 of about 85,800 (which means 85K pages, with 76% of the most significant thousand differing significantly rather than appearing to be clones of another of the first thousand)
- Warhol "Marilyn Monroe"
- 803 of about 538,000
- Warhol "Seymour Knox"
- 17 of about 21 (which means that there are about 21 pages, 17 of them looking unique)
- Warhol "Campbell's Soup"
- _ _ I am not sure I understand precisely although I get the picture. Please elaborate.
- _ _ Also, you mentioned
- They are also useful (without compromising that fundamental mission) where XYZ is likely to be casually used as a title for article 3, even tho there is a better title for article 3; in that case we are likely to include the title of article 3 on the Dab page, often in a "See also" section.
- That is the case here as I explained. The question is merely of the notability of article 3 in this case.
--TonyTheTiger 17:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
_ _ Glad that helped; i talk too much but sometimes it's not wasted. But if you'll tell me which Dab'n-related project (i.e., Wikipedia: ...) pages you've found, i might be able to come up with another formal source or two that you've not yet located. (Hmm, WP:MOSDAB; Wikipedia:Disambiguation may be the extent of it.)
_ _ Re G-Tests, you said
- I am not sure I understand precisely although I get the picture. Please elaborate.
You don't want to hear my complete exegesis of what i wrote (believe me; i know a lot about my weaknesses!), so could you ask a more specific question?
_ _ Re purpose of Dabs you said (context above)
- That is the case here as I explained.
Indeed, which is probably why i mentioned such a fine detail. You continued:
- The question is merely of the notability of article 3 in this case.
It is indeed such a question, and i may have obfuscated that fact by letting so much detail intervene before getting down to brass tacks by saying:
- On the other hand, articles not likely to be retained if written shouldn't get Dab entries ....
_ _ You said
- However, if neither of these is absent because it has been unsuccessful in an AfD discussion, then I am not sure what conclusion to draw.
No conclusion that matters in this case, IMO. (We're looking for how low numerical notability estimates can be for acceptable articles; their non-deletion only contributes evidence for some specific levels being high enough -- and that only if the articles have "stood the test of time", rather than being recent additions.) My (earlier?) mention of AfD meant something like "I've been involved in AfD debates for 3 years, and i think it's given me some insight you may lack, into the de-facto standards for what can properly be an article."
_ _ But am i clear in having illustrated that some works by the same artist are much more significant than the one we are disussing. (Trivia: your guy's portrait is not the bottom end of the scale; Warhol, presumably before his breakthru, painted a signed LP-record jacket for a recording of Swan Lake; i'll bet that's not verifiable on the Web.)
--Jerzy•t 19:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You said (along with two wonderful images that i supress here):
- _ _ I have always been of the opinion that "Seymour Knox" is less notable than "Marilyn Monroe" (probably because he is slightly less sexy:-) and "Campbell's Soup Can". This is not a point of contention. This is no different from the fact that Seymour H. Knox I is less notable than his cousin Frank Winfield Woolworth. If you told me that people have posted articles on Woolworth that have not survived AfDs, I would not have tried to post Knox I. However, if you said no one has posted a Woolworth article and I don't think it is a topic worth posting I would contend otherwise and try to post Knox or both. I really want to understand why something that is artistically notable like "Marilyn Monroe", is not wikipedia notable in terms of being likely to survive an AfD.
- _ _ The bottom line is this. I believe I could post a Marilyn Monroe that would survive an AfD. Less sure about "Seymour Knox".
- _ _ <<_ _ In your response you mentioned G-tests on
- Warhol "Campbell's Soup"
- 762 of about 85,800 (which means 85K pages, with 76% of the most significant thousand differing significantly rather than appearing to be clones of another of the first thousand)
- Warhol "Marilyn Monroe"
- 803 of about 538,000
- Warhol "Seymour Knox"
- 17 of about 21 (which means that there are about 21 pages, 17 of them looking unique)>>
- Warhol "Campbell's Soup"
- I have a masters in Statistics and still do not understand what you are saying. I do understand you are teaching me something someone who has a masters in statistic should know about search engine technology today. When I put Warhol "Campbell's Soup" in Google, I get:
- 1 - 10 of about 86,300 for Warhol "Campbell's Soup". (0.24 seconds)
- _ _ The bottom line is this: Where does the 762 and the 76% come from?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 23:25-:27, 19 October 2006
Encyclopedic art works
_ _ I haven't previously looked for articles on those two paintings, but my own presumption actually is that each of them is likely to deserve a WP article, a point i think i failed to put across; i think you are clear that i don't think that of the Knox portrait. IMO, the relevant differences are
- the Marilyn & Campbell's works are very familiar to most people, and the Knox one is unknown except to specialists
- those two were, at least jointly and probably individually, mediums for changing the direction of art (for a while at least) and perceptions of what art is (perhaps forever), and the Knox one probably broke no significant ground.
In light of those factors, i presume that the following areas would be worth including in a Warhol Campbell's Soup and a Warhol Marilyn Monroe article (my hope is that they exist, and i just haven't hit Rdrs to the actual titles):
- how each differed from what has gone before in the world of painting,
- the psychological implications that are generally agreed upon, or prominent, within Warhol criticism,
- the critical reaction (positive, negative, & other dimensions), and
- effects on the art market and on artists of various schools.
(However, i just did some research:
- Checked history and What-links-here for both titles
- general WP searches using each of those two sets of 3 words as search keys
- Google search within Wikipedia.org for several phrases
- scanned thru Andy Warhol for mentions of articles that might have the art works as their topics
- WP searches, restricted to the Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: Namespaces, for Marilyn, for Campbell, and for Soup.
I'm satisfied that articles on the topics of the two works don't currently exist, and inclined to assume that they never have -- especially since i did turn up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campbell Soup (disambiguation). IMO, this is a sign of a very weak area in WP. Adoration of the Magi and Aristotle Contemplating the Bust of Homer and Garden of Earthly Delights being 2 for 3 doesn't completely contradict that opinion; consulting Rembrandt reveals that our title is Aristotle with a Bust of Homer, stil red-lk'd, but more importantly, the number of rd-lks at Rembrandt#A selection of famous works, and the number of blue lks that are for articles on underlying stories rather than on the works, support my opinion.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzy (talk • contribs) 06:41, 20 October 2006
- Bravo, re your last on my talk. Expert editors are a great thing, but the willingness of interested amateurs to take a first crack at something is one of the lifebloods of WP. My (2003) "Wagner is BIG" edit (of Wagner or maybe Wagner's Ring -- and BTW maybe a WP:POINT violation) was awful, but elicited (perhaps embarrassed (sp?) someone into doing) a more adequate article.
--Jerzy•t 12:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC) - I hope i tried adequately to express that i am not an expert editor in the area of art. But my experience w/ what editors say in many areas leads me to applaud what you have done. If this sound find its way to AfD, i will be hard to move from a strong keep vote.
--Jerzy•t 03:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Google-testing
_ _ OK, that's the kind of specific question i was hoping for. My answer will nevertheless be long. I'm about to state a false model for how Google works. (If you care about what's false about it, go read a better source than i could write, and if you still have questions, come ask me what i think is wrong with my model, besides the fact that my model assumes that Google only has one user, and that the server depends on that.) Google has "crawled the Web" and built a data base of which pages contain "warhol" (and which "Campbell's" and which "Soup", altho that's not useful for our query) and which contain "Campbell's Soup". When we make our query, it interrogates its data base for pages meeting both criteria, and gets back both an estimate of the total of such pages, rounded off to something like 3 sig-figs, and some specific URLs (the highest 10 on some kind of "relevance" index that we can ignore for this model). If two of those ten are suspiciously similar, the less relevant of the two is discarded and replaced with the 11th. When we ask for another page of results, it provides 10 more, this time discarding those suspiciously similar to any of the previous results. If we continued, we would keep getting 10 at a time until the number we've been given and the number discarded add to 1000. And that's the end: at that point, if the model were true, we'd have seen 757 of the 86.1K, and 243 would have been discarded for being suspiciously similar to at least one of the 757, and the line near the top of the page would say "751-757 of approximately 86,100 ...".
_ _ Now, in practice you don't want to request 76 pages of 10 hits each. Repeating the test i reported above, Google provided me
labelled
- Results 1 - 10 of about 86,100 for Warhol "campbell's soup".
I clicked on lk 10 following "Result Page:" at the bottom of the page, jumping ahead to
and
- Results 91 - 100 of about 86,100 for Warhol "campbell's soup"
Now i edit the URL, inserting 9 before 90 and hitting enter, jumping to the last page of available results:
and
- Results 751 - 757 of about 86,100 for Warhol "campbell's soup"
(Good news: there are no such results as the 990-999 that the URL requests, but Google is smart enuf to give us the last page that does have undiscarded entries.)
_ _ I make it a practice to report Google-test results in that "757 of about 86,100" format, even tho the 86K figure is the prime cut: occasionally it's valuable to be able to estimate how many of the 86K are different, and if the first 1000 were representative of the last 85K, you could discount the 86K by 24% and estimate 65K instead. (Of course, G-test results are mostly interesting only as to order of magnitude, and discard rates are unlikely to rise to 50% without the number of hits being hundreds or less. But sometimes comparisons are being made between spellings of the same name, and the figures may be close enuf for different discard rates to affect the outcome.) That's probably as much as is worth saying, but ask if i've left you with questions.
--Jerzy•t 06:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Great response. If that is a common technique for wikipedians, googlers or internet users you should cut and paste that response into an article or at least a section of an article. You should then disambiguate it from the G test article. TonyTheTiger 18:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, gosh, i never really understood t-test. Most of what i recall is how unorthodox Bayes was and " ... You only really learn calc by studying stat. And you only really learn stat by teaching it." And the obvious never occurred to me, even after your response: that G-test could meaning something besides WP:GOOGLE (which i only saw as a page just before converting this msg from thots to text). Even if i were a good editor for the topic, i'm not sure the term would be used outside WP deletion-related discussions, nor [raising eyebrows] that a Google test article would survive WP:AfD. But what i wrote is under GFDL, so anyone could pursue the idea from where i left it.
--Jerzy•t 12:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:2006_team_home-Kyle-Busch-Kellogg's-Racing-5.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:2006_team_home-Kyle-Busch-Kellogg's-Racing-5.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Has the tea thing caught on in Chicago yet? If so, when can I hope to see these move a bit to the east, as I am burnt out on Starbucks coffee. youngamerican (yo) 01:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Campbell's Tomato Soup (from a banner), 1968.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Campbell's Tomato Soup (from a banner), 1968.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
,_1968.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Seymour Knox III, II, and IV.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Seymour Knox III, II, and IV.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Campbell's Soup with Can Opener.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Campbell's Soup with Can Opener.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for your message. I wouldn't really describe Paul Cornell as "my" Paul Cornell, although I have done a fair amount of work on his page over the years. I think you'd probably get a wider response to the move idea by posting a message on the Doctor Who WikiProject discussion page, here. Hope that helps. Angmering 21:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:20061022 Hampton House and South end of Harold Washington Park.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:20061022 Hampton House and South end of Harold Washington Park.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Paul_Cornell.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Paul_Cornell.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Seymour Knox copyright consent
What were your exact words when you requested consent? What was the reply? Andrew Levine 21:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I wish it was that easy to get permission to use images. However, Wikipedia requires its content to be compatible with the GFDL, and so the copyright holder has to understand that the image may be copied and re-used by other people, not just Wikipedia, and possibly eventually someone may use it for commercial purposes. He has to know what rights are protected by the GFDL and which are not. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more. Andrew Levine 15:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Re: dab assistance
I would suggest going to the dab page (August Busch), and putting a link back on every article that the dab page links to.
Also, since there is no article located at "William Wrigley", I'm going to move the dab page back to that location. Thanks for your help! --taestell 17:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:20061030 Blackstone Library Children's Annex Rear Door.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:20061030 Blackstone Library Children's Annex Rear Door.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks fine to me, keep up the good work! :) --Elonka 22:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh my!
- You seem to be knowledgeable on art of the late 19th century based on your contributions to the Monet page.
- Oh man, I wish! My big claim to fame is that I can probably tell a Monet from a Manet! I'll certainly look at the page, but please don't be surprised if I have nothing to add to your work.
- Atlant 18:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Haystacks
Thank you for asking. I may not get a chance to get back to you for a few days--I'm teaching art, and won't be at a computer much, but I do look forward to looking at what you've started, and responding. By then you might already have all the information and feedback you need. However, there is at least one good book on Monet's series paintings of the 1890's, an exhibition catalogue (not sure, but might be written by Paul Hayes Tucker), which will be helpful. Take care, JNW 19:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
To me, it's odd to write "canvases he desired to depict in a part of a series," because you depict a scene, you paint a canvas. To depict a canvas would be to paint an image of or to photograph a canvas. You could "paint", "create" or "produce." Carrionluggage 19:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, this is a brilliant idea, for painting in series has become a focus of art historical discussion within the last decades. If you find little about this on wikipedia, this is due to the fact that wiki-editors mainly rely on popular publications of days long gone. If you check the Van Gogh biography, you will see that it is still dominated by themes and discussions of the 1960's. So, gone on! Be keen, and don't forgot to add reliable sources: Paul Tucker is one, Rick Bretell and Joachim Pissarro (Pissarro!) are others. And by the way, care a bit on point of the previous editor: I think he's right. - I'll put your edits on my watch list. All the best,--RPD 22:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Very good idea--nice page. Would you mind if I did some copy editing for grammar and phrasing, as well as refining some of the information? JNW 22:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I am sending this out to wikiart folks everywhere,
so please don't feel picked on. Here's my thing. I've been watching list of sculptors recently and have been weeding out the entries in red on the theory that this is an index of sculptors in wikipedia. However i have been reluctant to remove artists that I know or discover to be real, wikipedia worthy people, so am trying to decide if i should just do a stub - maybe a lot of stubs - of these folks or leave them on the list [I HATE lists with too much red - check out the List of Frank Lloyd Wright works for example.
For example, i checked out one, François-Joseph Duret (1804 - 1865) and discovered that there are at least two sculptors with that name, (1732 - 1816) and (1804 - 1865)- this one is the son - and both probably could comfortably be in wikipedia. I did have a rather bad moment recently when someone DELETED my article on Connor Barrett about an hour [maybe less] after I first posted it, on the theory that he was not wikiworthy [or something] and a lot of these fairly remote (in time and place from me) artists are a lot more obscure than Barrett. So, i would like to know that i have the support of the wikipedia art history community before doing this. Drop me a line, if you wish to sit down and be counted. Life is good, Carptrash 05:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. although i do mostly American art i have contributed to lots on non-American articles including Aleijadinho, Ásmundur Sveinsson, Einar Jonsson, Gunnfrídur Jónsdóttir, Henry Moore, Ivan Meštrović, Ørnulf Bast, Rayner Hoff, and probably some others. I say this because most of the stubs I'm proposing would be Europeans. PPS You are probably one of the few folks who might actually care that my library (at home) includes a copy of Burnham's Plan of Chicago published by the Commercial Club of Chicago, MCMIX.
- thanks for you thoughts on this subject. I rather like your 4 groups approach and will proabably do some version of that. Carptrash 14:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Painting Cats
_ _ I think you're reading more thot into my Cat removal than i in fact performed. Your question raises in my mind the fact of two conventions (not necessarily merely conventions) for articles and Cats respectively.
- Article titles are normally singular, unless plurality is inherant in the topic, as with (i'd guess) Slavs and (likewise, but making my point more clearly) Mongols. All you can say about the nature of a Slav or Mongol without reference to groups of them is a specification of the geography and genealogy that identifies one person as a Slav or Mongol; most of what is interesting to say about either concept is the characteristics that are neither unique to the group nor true of every individual in the group, but are especially likely to be more true of the members than of non-members. I.e., articles usually have singular titles bcz the interesting things you can say about one automobile or horse, as auto or horse, are true of virtually every auto or horse.
- Cat titles are normally singular, because the concept of "category" exists to group distinct individual people or things that have something in common; the Cat is about their multiplicity, and AFAI can see, the exceptions like Category:Mark Twain are really just a shorthand for "topics concerning Mark Twain".
Now, do these imply that this article is flouting the article convention by simultaneously focusing on the prototypical several dozen and on the totality of his can works? Is it going wrong by trying to put itself in one specific cat for a single year, and in another more general one bcz of what might be called Warhol's soup-can cycle (or soup-can period)? Is your inclusion of one or the other Cat illegitimate, bcz it puts the article into a Cat that does not truly describe the real (single) topic of the article? Does an article have to have a single clearly primary topic? If it doesn't, when is the proper remedy dividing it into two articles? Beats me, and you might for all i know be breaking new ground that will eventually clarify the Cat concept by fitting one kind of outlying case into the big picture whose core has by now become fairly clear.
_ _ You may want to consider some serious study of past discussion of the Cat system (esp'ly re removal of redundants), either for answers to some of those or for background to help you state the real questions better than i've succeeded in doing. And/or you may want to put back at least one Cat that i removed as redundant, with comment markup next to the Cat tags, admitting that redundancy may be an issue, and directing attention to the talk page for the article, where it can be discussed, hopefully by ed'rs wiser than i in these matters.
_ _ (I'm tempted to close with "Welcome to the Monkey House", but instead:) WP is big, and rich in complexities. I hope they're not getting you down. If i have personal advice to give you, it's that my personality attunes me to complexities of objective detail and ill-suits me to complexities of nuance, and that i've found the parts of the richly varied WP world that best mesh with those peculiarities of my personality; IMO we're talking nuance here, mostly, and the vagueness of my response reflects my sense of owing you more just "ask someone else" but finding that "purse" empty. I hope you'll find your way to better answers than mine (and to a satisfying sense of which parts of WP are your parts).
--Jerzy•t 04:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: The Apprentice
Hey - just wondered why you were adding the template to people who won't be on the show? According to this, only Angela Ruggiero will take part, the others won't feature. Sam Vimes | Address me 23:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)