Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts
 | Visual arts Project‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Related discussions: |
|
| This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 4 June 2012. |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21 |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Where to read about/contribute to conversations re: Visual Arts coverage[edit]
Hi y'all, quick question about this project. Would this talk page be the place to discuss issues/ideas around visual arts coverage on Wikipedia in general? I have a lot of thoughts and observations I want to add about structural issues facing arts coverage (declining sources of coverage, structural issues in arts scholarship knowledge dissemination, technicalities in the VisArts manual of style), but I don't want to just dump those thoughts in an unhelpful place. I've started doing some intensive content edits recently on artist bios for the first time, and I've just noticed some trends/structural issues that don't seem to have been identified clearly anywhere in the Visual Arts style guide or project discussions. Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, this is the correct place to discuss visual arts coverage on Wikipedia. GranCavallo (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Circling back because my original message seems so vague and self-important in retrospect. Was just feeling a little sad about the state of contemporary visual arts coverage specifically, but I don't think any of the structural problems I "identified" are actually that novel or new to anyone here. Sources are declining and being gated on all fronts, not just the arts; the relationship between Wikipedia and arts scholarship/museums is complicated, that's not a new observation; the art world loves keeping things exclusive, including information, which is not any sort of revelation; and it is inherently difficult to evaluate the notability of artists in the context of an art market that often arbitrarily decides who gets a lifetime of sustained, detailed coverage in reliable sources and who doesn't, one of the main struggles that no one here is probably new to. Just closing the loop here. Thank you @GranCavallo and @Johnbod for your help. 19h00s (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
List of Renaissance artists[edit]
I noticed that there was a request for a List of Renaissance artists on the requested articles page, so I created a draft: Draft:List of Renaissance artists. I honestly can't believe that Wikipedia didn't already have such a list. I've already added a few of the most important Renaissance artist. I'm going to add a few more artists over the next day or two before I move the article to mainspace. If anyone would like to help, please do. GranCavallo (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wow, that is very short! Personally, I think categories are the way to handle this, plus we have lists at Old Master, List of Catholic artists, and probably other places. See Category:Lists of artists. Generally, such lists get low views. Either they are hopelessly long, or people complain of subjective selection criteria. Johnbod (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be in favor of seeing how the list grows, and likely in favor of mainspacing. It seems to be topic-worthy if done well. As for readers, lists get more views when they are added to the 'See also' sections of the named topics. Lists, navboxes, and categories are all ways to navigate, and are usually considered of equal value and usage. If a functional list covers the topic other editors eventually will expand it in various ways, and it will be interesting to check if this works as GranCavallo envisions. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- I must say I wouldn't approve of adding a link to SA, presumably to each bio on the list. Or another navbox. What we need is better articles, not more lists and navboxes. I'd add that things on "articles requested" are best approached with great caution; most are unsuitable. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the list may get unwieldly if it gets into the hundreds of entries. Well-done lists and navboxes are fine, and "bring" readers to the existing better articles and not-so-good articles which, upon being found, may be improved. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- I must say I wouldn't approve of adding a link to SA, presumably to each bio on the list. Or another navbox. What we need is better articles, not more lists and navboxes. I'd add that things on "articles requested" are best approached with great caution; most are unsuitable. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be in favor of seeing how the list grows, and likely in favor of mainspacing. It seems to be topic-worthy if done well. As for readers, lists get more views when they are added to the 'See also' sections of the named topics. Lists, navboxes, and categories are all ways to navigate, and are usually considered of equal value and usage. If a functional list covers the topic other editors eventually will expand it in various ways, and it will be interesting to check if this works as GranCavallo envisions. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Featured Article review for Empire of the Sultans[edit]
An article in the scope of this Wikiproject is currently up for Featured Article review. Input is welcomed to decide if this article is worthy of the FA rating. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Feel like discussing the WP:LEADIMAGE at William Shakespeare?[edit]
Your view is welcome at Talk:William_Shakespeare#Lead_image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The lead image at Mount Rushmore is under discussion...[edit]
...at Talk:Mount Rushmore#Opening image. The three 'candidates' are presented at the top of the discussion. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)