Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 20

Madonna

The usage of "Madonna" is up for discussion, see talk:Madonna (entertainer) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of Madonna

Madonna (Edvard Munch) is lately under siege by a COI account adding content about--and I don't say this lightly--a spurious and unsupported attribution. Further thoughts welcome, though if this continues I'll request a user block. JNW (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Binghamcopperminesmithson.jpg

File:Binghamcopperminesmithson.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Student papers

Hi I'm not sure this is the right place/way to ask my question. I teach a course called Contemporary Art and Geopolitics in the Arab World at the Paris School of International Affairs, which is the international (e.g. English-language) master program of Sciences Po. Given the scarcity of information on Wikipedia about contemporary art generally, and that from the Arab world in particular, and given also the quality of the papers by my students (a bright international bunch) I have requested them to upload their papers on wikipedia. It's also a way of avoiding good papers going unread, a major problem in academia. Do you think this is a good idea? Do you foresee any major problems? Greetings, Robert Kluijver RobertK Prods (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Robert, unfortunately that is not the purpose of Wikipedia, it is simply not the place to publish original work. As an encyclopedia, it simply (yeah, right!) reports what other reliably published news/book sources have said about the subjects.
However, your students will undoubtedly come across many reliable published sources and maybe they could create/develop/improve Wikipedia articles using these. I expect you're right, the visual arts could do with improved coverage here! Sionk (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Sionk; I understand the point about 'original work' and have requested the students to make encyclopedia entries, not the analytical papers that are usually requested for a course like mine. If their articles are not deemed fit for publishing by the WP community I will read them in their 'sandbox' and hopefully be able to improve them sufficiently to qualify as a WP article.RobertK Prods (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Short answers: maybe and yes. Wikipedia:Education noticeboard is a rather better place than here, and you should cross-post there. Student essays generally do not work well on WP, which is an encyclopedia, with the usual differences in format and styles to essays that that implies. Please make sure your students list anything they upload here, or at some other single page linked to from here. As new editors, I think they will have to go through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process (not sure if that is compulsory), which can be protracted and erratic. Reviewers with some visual arts background will make this easier. Johnbod (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Johnbod. I will crosspost, sorry for the delay. See my reply to Sionk above about the essay vs encyclopedia question. I know (and am experiencing myself) that the WP:Articles for creation process is arduous but I think that, as the brilliant and well-trained students that they are, they should learn how to give back to the community and disseminate their knowledge through Wikipedia.RobertK Prods (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Arts and crafts in the UK

I recently was sent a copy of the interviewee list for the "Crafts Lives" project by the UK National Life Stories oral history program. This covered ~120 living British (or UK-resident) craftspeople; to a first approximation, they're all probably notable/significant figures. I've put it up at Wikipedia:GLAM/BL/Crafts if anyone wants to have a look for some interesting names to work on!

Cheeringly, 30% of the people have at least a stub article already, which is better than I expected for contemporary figures working in an area of the arts (ceramics, glass, furniture, bookbinding) that Wikipedia often neglects. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Morara standard.PNG

File:Morara standard.PNG has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Promoting Caspar David Friedrich as Featured Article of the Day

Does anybody know how to promote this article as Featured Article in the Main Page? --George Ho (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

A large number of articles need checking

See User talk:Drmies/Archive 47#The best way to check all of the articles by an editor. Kavdiaravish has created a large number of problematic articles. They all need to be checked for copyvio, spam links to wahooart.com, proper grammar, accuracy, and original research. A list of his edits exist at User:Writ Keeper/sandbox. I'm actually fairly busy, so I don't know how much I can do, but it would be great if some editors here could help go through the list. If the source is a book that you don't have access to, please don't assume good faith, but mark that you don't have access because it needs to be checked for copyvio by someone who does. Ryan Vesey 01:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I should think "original research" is the last thing he can be accused of - he clearly doesn't know one end of a paintbrush from the other, & this looks like commercial spamming+ for wahooart to me. The newly created paintings articles should just deleted imo; where copyvio is not an issue his inadequate English is. All the works are notable but we have more than enough stubs on paintings already. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
It's worse--There are several new IDs now adding this spamlink; see The Morteratsch Glacier, Upper Engadine Valley, Pontresina for example. User:Shirt58 brought this to my attention. Identical peculiarities of writing style across all accounts suggest there may be some sockpuppetry here. Ewulp (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
It's interesting, we both thought sockpuppetry at the same time. I'm headed to ANI, I'll request a blacklist on the link. Ryan Vesey 01:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I don't think there's a such thing as too much stubs. In any case, I wouldn't be against blindly stubbifying all of them. I'd be taking him to ANI, but it looks like he gave up, at least from that account, when he realized he couldn't continue spamming wahooart. Ryan Vesey 01:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • My word, deleting them all might not be a bad idea. Consider Florinda (painting), which until recently [1] was blatantly incorrect. Unless I am the one misunderstanding things, the Met stated that their version was a reproduction. Kavdiaravish's sock decided to depict the entire painting as a replica. The wrong date is still in the lead, I'd fix it up, but I think we'll end up having them all deleted. Ryan Vesey 01:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability/Art galleries

I am wondering if anyone else would like to weigh in here? We also might consider this as a discussion of relevance. Bus stop (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletionist at large

This editor User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz takes his own license to delete whatever he deems deletable in flagrant misunderstanding of the point of this encyclopedia especially in regard to the visual arts. Editors are invited to weigh in here: [2]...Modernist (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You haven't pointed to a discussion that he is involved with or a single diff he made that was inappropriate. Ryan Vesey 23:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
That's your opinion; not mine. I'd invite visual arts editors to weigh in here as well: [3]...Modernist (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Help with an article

Hello fellow art enthusiasts, I just created The Dehumanization of Art and Other Essays on Art, Culture, and Literature, an article about one of José Ortega y Gasset's compositions. However, I could use some help from an expert on the subject to make sure that I've represented it fairly and accurately. The article's not very long and is fairly stubbly, but I want to make sure that it is all factually correct. Sesamehoneytart 10:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It needs evidence of secondary coverage (independent reviews, expert analysis etc.) to prove the subject is suitable for its own article. Wouldn't it be better to write the article about the original work and the translation? Personally I would tend to nominate an article like this for deletion, because the only sources are the publication itself. Sionk (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
You mean merging with the author's bio, surely? Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't cite the work itself at all, perhaps I should make that a little clearer. I cited a review by the publisher, which was clearly biased, and a journal about the impact it had on the movement started by the generation of '27, which was not so biased and is the kind of expert analysis mentioned above. It was notable enough to be the answer of a quiz bowl, which is how I stumbled upon it. Although I believe that the impact it has had makes it notable enough to be an article on its own, the notability line is definitely fuzzy and changes between subject groups. I can see how it could also work being merged with the author's article, but I would do it reluctantly.Sesamehoneytart 14:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Notability for inclusion in the encyclopedia is measured by very specific criteria: passing the GNG with multiple secondary, reliable sources (otherwise it goes to AfD). This article doesn't do that just yet. (Quizbowls don't count.) Here are some possible leads. czar · · 05:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Duchamp LargeGlass.jpg

file:Duchamp LargeGlass.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 07:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Temerev.jpg

File:Temerev.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 07:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Giovanni Della Casa.jpg

file:Giovanni Della Casa.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Chinese royalty portraits up for deletion

Several Imperial Chinese royalty portraits have been nominated for speedy deletion:

-- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Salvaged one; others seem to be on Commons. None are very high quality images frankly. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Article titles

Is there a policy here about the italicising of the names of paintings? Some seem to be italicised and some not. I realise it might depend on whether the title is one given by the artist, or one by which a work is conventionally known. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ritaangus.jpg

file:Ritaangus.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

sorted. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Emperor Qianlong.jpg

File:Emperor Qianlong.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Regiment of Horse.jpg

File:Regiment of Horse.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Bilibin - Tsarevna Swan-Bird.jpg

File:Bilibin - Tsarevna Swan-Bird.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary art

Editors are invited to weigh in here: [4]...Modernist (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thierry Geoffroy and subpages for deletion

I recently nominated a few related articles for deletion: Thierry Geoffroy and subpages Emergency Room (art), Awareness Muscle, Biennalist, Format art, Penetration (artistic), but they weren't tagged with WPVA at the time so you may have missed them. I added them to the project today. Their discussion pages are: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thierry Geoffroy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emergency Room (art) (group). czar · · 20:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Table with Pink Tablecloth

If anyone is able to add anything to this new article please do. Bus stop (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Taj Mahal

There is currently a discussion about alleged feminist theories of the Taj Mahal. Comments would be welcome. Paul B (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Art Institute of Chicago

Once again visual arts editors need to weigh in here [5]...Modernist (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Have any new painting articles been tagged?

Hey, edit filter 545 was set up to catch a banned editor creating a lot of painting articles. The filter hasn't been tripped, but it would be easy to bypass. Has anyone noticed or tagged any newly created articles on paintings recently? Thanks. Ryan Vesey 06:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

New Infobox artwork parameters

I have added parameters for catalogue references and accession numbers to {{Infobox artwork}}; you can see them in use on Sorrow (Van Gogh). Please make use of them in other articles, as appropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

New Art Gallery Walsall: Wikipedian in Residence

I am pleased to announce that I recently became the Wikipedian in Residence at The New Art Gallery Walsall. We're running a series of public events, to which all are invited. Details on the project page Wikipedia:GLAM/NAGW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Art Research Center and article "ownership"

I've encountered some editors who have a connection to the Art Research Center and are claiming ownership of the article. I've started a discussion on the talk page. Basically, I've removed an unsourced list of names that have no articles and performed some general clean-up. I've been told I don't have "authorization" to do so and the Center founder has directed the reverting of my changes. I've explained Wikipedia policy on my talkpage here but it looks like my advice has been ignored and now a second IP has reverted all my changes. If others could weigh in and/or watchlist the article that would be helpful. freshacconci talktalk 17:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Nude photography

Nude photography has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:Nude photography -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


B-class review

Is this project doing B-class review? I am looking for a review for Astronomer Copernicus, or Conversations with God before a potential GAN. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't normally do those. It looks a bit short for a GA to me, but I never know what GA standards are as it seems to vary with each reviewer. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Flist nom

Peer Review

I am shooting for a 50th anniversary WP:TFA for Drowning Girl on September 28th. The article is currently at WP:PR. Feel free to drop by and comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Drowning Girl/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Album cover art research

I need help researching album cover art for Template:Joanne Gair. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Album_Cover_Art_research.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Jacek Tylicki

Jacek Tylicki needs inline sources and verification. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Files up for deletion, speedy deletion, copyright dispute (May 2013)

These files have been nominated for deletion through various deletion processes, including being up for speedy deletion: (this list is not exhaustive, please check the various deletion processes for other files)

WikiData

Hi all, I just joined a WikiData taskforce that might interest some of you here: Wikidata:Artworks_task_force/Properties. Jane (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Art squats

I came across the Art squat article, which claimed to be a 'movement' originating in Los Angeles. However, this claim was unproven and the linked articles described early art squats in Paris. I've therefore re-written the article in a more general tone, though I'm not 100% sure the term 'Art squat' is widely used. Opinions, contributions and edits much welcome! Sionk (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I never heard of it, seemed dubious to me when I saw it earlier, maybe - related to alternative spaces? Hardly notable...Modernist (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I suppose it relates here: Artist-run space...Modernist (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • If "art squat" is a local LA term, perhaps a section in Artist-run space would be appropriate but unless there are sources that show wide use of the term, applying it to historic spaces is inappropriate and certainly shouldn't be its own article. I doubt the Parisian or German examples were referred to as "squats" which I think is a North American English term (I'm speaking of the actual term "squatting" as opposed to the act). freshacconci talktalk 16:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
The verb has long been used in British English, though originally American (used 1800 per OED). The noun for a building has been common in the UK since the '60s & might be British first; it is used in some Euro languages also - "Besetzte Häuser werden in einigen Ländern, zum Beispiel Frankreich, Großbritannien, Polen und Ungarn, als Squats bezeichnet." from wp:de "Hausbesetzung" = squatting. The Hungarian article is called "Squat", as is the French, also the Slavic languages. Oddly the OED has from 1450: Squat (obselete) "A company of daubers" = painters? Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
A mere mention in another article, such as Artist-run space, should suffice. There can be crossover in meaning between "artist-run space" and "art squat" but I don't think they are the same. The New York Times article does not mention the "squat" as a type of gallery, for instance one from which sales are made. Although likely sales would be made from "art squats". Concerning "artist-run spaces" the emphasis doesn't seem to be on living space but rather gallery space, although I haven't really read a lot of the sources supporting our "Artist-run space" article. And it is also likely that in some instances "artist-run spaces" also served housing purposes. Therefore we should be careful if mentioning "art squats" in the "artist-run space" article to not imply that the two concepts are necessarily the same. We might mention that "art squats" have provided inexpensive studio space for some artists under some limited circumstances. The New York Times article on "art squats" does mention briefly the term "studio space": "It reopened in September 2009, and today serves as studio space for 32 resident artists." Bus stop (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
The term 'Art Squat' is a neat description of the phenomenon and is clearly used by a number of reputable sources, though not consistently. I've added Berlin's Tacheles to the article, based on the coverage of its closure by the BBC and a UK newspaper's blog. Der Spiegel uses the term artists' squat. Personally, I think the Art squat article should remain because it describes a particular manifestation of artists' space, distinct from the usual, legal organisations. Sionk (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
"Squats" are basically legal distinctions. This has little bearing on art. Art squats are appropriately mentioned in the article titled Squatting. I don't think sources for "art squats" distinguish such settings from other settings in which art is made, sold, exhibited, or in which artists live. Based on available sources I don't think an article is needed simply to note the illegal or unclear legal status that might apply to certain art settings. Bus stop (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Help please

I don't know if this is the right place to ask for help, but there has been an issue with a editor at Georges_Yatridès for a few months. User:Arnaugi has denied having a conflict of interest but his edits started showing up right after User:Yatrides was told that he couldn't edit his own article, and Arnaugi's edits have had a strong pro Georges_Yatridès point of view. Do you think someone from this project could take a look? CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Content debate at Talk:Roy Lichtenstein: Legitimate artistic muse vs. self-promoting spam

There is a debate at Talk:Roy_Lichtenstein#Sexual_affairs regarding attempted content contribution.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Drowning Girl/archive1

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Drowning Girl/archive1 is now open. Please come comment on Roy Lichtenstein's 2nd or 3rd most important work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Whaam!/archive1

I had started working on Drowning Girl to prepare it for the 50th anniversary of its first exhibition on September 28th. While cleaning it up, I learned that it had exhibited in April 1963 as well, making September it 2nd exhibtion. In order to prepare one of Lichtenstein's important works for a 50th anniversary celebration, I am now working on Whaam!, which is his most important work and believed to have been first exhibited on September 28, 1963. Please come comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Whaam!/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Lichtenstein's Woman with Flowered Hat

Roy Lichtenstein's Woman with Flowered Hat is queued up for a main page appearance tomorrow in the DYK section. I was wondering if anyone knows how to figure out which Picasso it emulates, preferably before then.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like some already did! Paul B (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Change reply: are you asking specifically which of the Marr portraits it is copying? This one or one. Paul B (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I included a Picasso of Maar in the article. I was wondering if there are any sources linking the Lichtenstein to a particular Picasso/Maar portrait. I assume there are several Picasso/Maars in this style.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I edited the sentence about its origins. It's based on a postcard sent by the Picasso painting's owner. Here is a low-res version of the original (in comparison): http://www.artupdate.nl/lichtenstein-in-ludwig/. I couldn't easily track down its title or owner. At the very least, I'd replace the current secondary image with the one previously linked. There are also some good refs here if you want to dig deeper. I'll continue looking a bit more tonight. czar · · 16:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's the one, also reproduced in the book I mentioned below. The book dates from 2007, so it's probably still in the same collection. Paul B (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, it turns out that it's an exact copy of the 1939-40 Woman with a Flowered Hat (Lichtenstein's plagiarism is rarely less than total!) in the Morton G. Neumann collection. The images are discussed on p.254 of Fitzgerald's Picasso and American Art. I have the book with me now. Paul B (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you pull a quote out of the book? I can't get its excerpts online. I saw that the painting is Plate 76 in Picasso: The Recent Years, so I'm taking it out from the library. Hopefully it'll have some commentary too. czar · · 16:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'm adding material now. Unfortunately some of the news reports have many of the details wrong. For example the reproduction he used was not a "postcard". You can actually see it on the wall here [6] in the notorious Life magazine article on Lichtenstein, written when he was at work on the painting. Paul B (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd stick with what Christie's says (as a RS) before relying on the Life mag image. While what you says looks to be right, it's possible that he enlarged that image from a postcard. (If your book says otherwise, my point is moot.) On that note, can you add the actual quotes to the citations (within the ref) when you have a chance? I'd like to read what the author says exactly. czar · · 23:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The book says "a reproduction" was sent to him. I don't see how he could have enlarged a postcard. In 1963 that would be a complicated and rather expensive procedure. I also find it rather unlikely that a "postcard" would exist of a modernist painting in a private collection at that time. I don't know what you mean by "add the actual quotes to the citations within the ref". Paul B (talk) 10:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
When was tracing paper invented? My guess is that at some point after Engagement Ring, he started using the sort of technique described in the block quote at Drowning Girl.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Tracing paper was used in the 19th century, and before that paper would be dipped in oil to create transparency. Paul B (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Quote as in Template:Cite book#Quote. Enlargement was a guess (can be done a variety of ways), but let's stick with whatever the RS say, right? czar · · 19:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
If you are referring to the use of the "quote" template, that's a matter of stylistic preference. If you like it, do it! However, you seem to be referring to actual text from the book that you believe is missing ("I'd like to read what the author says exactly"). I confess I am still mystified by this. What text is it that you want exactly? Speaking personally I dislike the complicated "cite book" codes for footnotes because they create a mass of coding when you open a page for editing, often making it horrendously difficult to read and edit easily. Re the "postcard": The Christies source is just a press release. The book is rather more authoritative, I think. In any case, a postcard is a reproduction, so there is no problem with the text as it is. Paul B (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't add it if you don't want—I wanted the quote more for my own curiosity and thought it would be utilitarian to add it to the article. I'll have to take the book out of the library. (By the way, list-defined refs can help with that reading issue, or at least that's what I do.) On that previously mentioned Picasso book, it has a b/w reproduction and lists the piece as: Woman with Flowered Hat, Royan, October 11, 1939, May 5, 1940. Oil on Canvas, 28 x 23½". No real textual help, though. I'll hold onto it for a few more days in case anyone wants a reference. czar · · 06:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind adding a brief passage to the footnote from the book if there is something you think is specifically missing, or needs the exact words of the source. I just don't quite "get" what quote you are after. Paul B (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
It isn't complicated—I just wanted to read how the author phrased it in the book, which would easily fit under the appropriate citation parameter, but it isn't necessary to add. I've purchased the book. No worries. czar · · 02:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you keep saying you want to know something without saying what it is you want to know. You say "I just wanted to read how the author phrased it in the book". What is this "it", that you want me to provide the exact phrasing of? There are already two verbatim quotations from the book, not counting the transcribed interview with Lichtenstein. Paul B (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this article--it looks great! I was recently introduced to Lictenstein, and Wikipedia coverage of his work has proven to be very helpful. I have created stubs for a few of his other works, including two nudes, the subway mural in NYC and Large Interior with Three Reflections. Keep up the great work! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Anita Rodriguez

This is up at WP:AfD. Can somebody fix the isues tagged? Bearian (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Iconography of Gautama Buddha in Laos and Thailand

FYI, a large portion of Iconography of Gautama Buddha in Laos and Thailand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was removed late last year, with these edits -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - just looks like vandalism, so I reverted. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

New article on gender studies lecturer Nicholas Chare

I've created a new article on gender studies lecturer, Nicholas Chare.

Further help with expansion would be most appreciated.

Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

More Roy Lichtenstein help

I am shooting for a four-article hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Brattata, Jet Pilot, and Okay Hot-Shot. I am having trouble finding content for Brattata and Mr. Bellamy. Help would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I went to the public library today to get enough for these.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Files up for deletion, speedy deletion, copyright dispute (June 2013)

These files have been nominated for deletion through various deletion processes, including being up for speedy deletion: (this list is not exhaustive, please check the various deletion processes for other files)

Okay Hot-Shot, Okay! source images

Werieth (talk · contribs) has taken to edit warring at Roy Lichtenstein's Okay Hot-Shot, Okay!. He is citing WP:NFCC#8 as his reason for removing the sources to the art, but that is the precise reason why the content should be kept in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

In order to meet WP:NFCC#8 there needs to be sourced third party reliable sources discussing the files and there needs to be more than a paragraph to justify 4 non-free files. As the article currently stands there isnt justification for that many files. Just because it inspired the art work, you dont need to display it. Werieth (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I have seen no policy stating that it takes more than one paragraph to demonstrate that materials are necessary to understanding of an artwork. Can you please point me to WP:MORETHANONEPARA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:NCC#3 requires minimal usage, and WP:NFCC#8 requires Contextual significance. One paragraph One sentence The work was inspired by five different comic book panels made by Russ Heath and Irv Novick.[1] The plane, the pilot, the text balloon and the graphic onomatopoeia each comes from a panel from a different comic book. isnt enough justification for 4 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I have added a couple more sentences, but I don't see why they are necessary.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The images clearly add to reader understanding (which is the NFCC #8 requirement) so I have restored them. NFCC #8 (intentionally) doesn't speak of any text being required -- the question is whether the reader gains additional understanding, that they would not have without seeing the image. In the context of a Lichtenstein work adapting and re-contextualising original source material, that is plainly the case. The reader plainly gets a better understanding by seeing what the original source images were, and how they were adapted. Jheald (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I think this can be argued but at the present, there are no (apparent) sources that avoid the original research of identifying where those source images come from. (It's apparently clear, but that would fall under WP:TRIVIA and trainspotting if sources haven't identified that.) That said, I don't think you need all four. One would be sufficient to show how an element was borrowed from the source comic (likely, the one of the pilots face since that is clearly copied), you don't need all four once you've made the point he used elements from comics. --MASEM (t) 02:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
What is wrong with the sources in the article at present.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you believe that the readers will understand how he cobbled elements from 5 different panels by showing them one? Showing all of them demonstrates what he did.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Were you having a problem with the ref being in the prose and not the WP:CAPTION. I have copied it to the CAPTION.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
You don't mention the specific sources in the prose so it was hard to determine which source attributes where the images were taken from. That said (assuming sourcing is not the issue), yes, it is reasonable to expect our average reader to understand that if you show one example of borrowed usage that explaining there were three more is intuitive. In other words, you can show that with 2 images (the actual work of art, and one comic example), not 5, as required by NFCC#3a. This is particularly true as two of them - the text balloon and the omanomapedia text - are generic items from comics and certainly don't need visual reference. --MASEM (t) 06:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The understanding being conveyed here is not that in general terms that Lichtenstein "borrowed" from other works. That point at a general level is the kind of thing the main article on Lichtenstein would cover. But this article is an article on the specifics of this picture. People coming to this article are likely to already know in general terms that Lichtenstein reused/repurposed existing art. What's relevant in the context of this article are the specifics: what, for this specific work, were the specific sources; and how in this specific instance they compare to the Lichtenstein work. That, for NFCC #8 in the context of this article, is the addition to reader understanding which is absolutely on-point for this work; and, no, only showing the reader half the source material does not convey the same information. Jheald (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of how you call it, at least of the non-free examples do not need to be seen: the text which is visually different (since you can just type that in as ASCII to show that), and the onomatopoeia as that doesn't appear at all in the original panel. The pilot image is the one that has the strongest reason for an example since that's not based on a real object, and the reuse in the work is abundantly obvious, thus providing a strong visual connection between the two. Hence the best example; the others are "oh, yeah", but do not have anywhere near the same visual impact that requires the NFCC exemption to use. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I have just rearranged for two sources. Although I concede that the text bubble source is fairly trivial, the onomatopoeia seems to be integral to part of the understanding of the work. It is a substantial portion of the image and was clearly derived from a comic source. Throughout WP, we show Lichtenstein's non-trivial sources. I consider the graphic non-trivial because it is artwork. E.g., if you were to crop the image down to just this, it would still be significant artwork (like say Varoom!, which I sadly do not know the source of). Since it would be a substantial artwork by itself, its source should be presented to the reader if we can identify it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Another editor seems to have reverted my change. I don't feel strongly about the text bubble source being included, but I understand his position on the other image(s).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
There's clear value in being able to see the context in which the text bubble originally appeared in the source material, so see how this phrase (which in the context of the Lichtenstein work may acquire an additional sly resonance to the "Pouring" art movement) originally occurred. Jheald (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Remember, we're not an art deconstruction source, we are a tertiary summary encyclopedia, and there's a level of detail that is inappropriate that is also tied with how much NFCC we can include. I completely appreciate showing one example of the original source material in contrast to the final work and the description of where the other elements were pulled from within the bounds of NFCC, and while all four would be nice, that far outweighs the NFCC policy. One demonstration is sufficient along with the sources that if the reader wants to see more, they can, but they do not need to see all four examples to appreciate the work; the same comprehension is there with just 2 non-frees (the main work and one example) along with the associated text. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I think you have to ask youself what is the purpose of the images here. It is not to demonstrate that Lichtenstein re-interpreted the work of other artists. Someone coming to this article would almost certainly know that already, for example from our general article on Lichtenstein. Rather, the point of the images here is to show the specific sources Lichtenstein used for this image, and how he re-worked them. As I wrote above, that is the information that is added to reader understanding, and only showing the reader half the source material does not convey the same information (the key test for NFCC #3).
I also utterly reject what we might call Masem's Mantra of Mediocrity (tm). An article here ought to be as good and thorough and complete and free-standing as we can make it. And that is perfectly consistent with being a tertiary source. Sure, part of being good and thorough and comprehensive is that one has to be selective. Our readers' reading patience is finite, the article needs to put over what is most important (or, at least, put over what is most important first). WP:UNDUE applies, and an article must keep balance. But with a work by Lichtenstein, presenting the source material is part of that key information, because so much of Lichtenstein's work famously being so closely derived from source material, seeing what the source material in this case was is directly relevant to the reader's understanding of Lichtenstein's creative contribution. Jheald (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I will say this. In many WP:FACs I have been up against a 4 NFCC item limit. This has made me think in the past. Here we have the work and four or five (depending on how you count the double panel) sources. I am just saying that I would be most willing to give up the text balloon, if we have to give one up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no set amount of NFC that an article is allowed to use. The ideal number is zero but of course we recognize that some article do require NFC to properly help illustrate an article to help the reader understand the target in a non-free manner. Being an article about a work of art, certainly 1 is appropriate - the work of discussion. But it's not useful to say "this article could use 4, I should be able to use 4", because that limit does not exist at all. There's a reason NFC doesn't mention any numbers because otherwise that is gamed heavily.
As to Jheald's point, you don't need to illustrate every source that the art came from to explain that there are original sources where Lichtenstein used for the work. You can list them out in text and that satisfies that point. I am sympathetic to the point that for two of those examples (the plane and the pilot) that there is a clear visual similarity that is apparent from just inspection, and thus understanding how Lichtenstein incorporated that into the work. So there is a reasonably expectation for some additional NFC media outside the work itself to show this. But you don't need all four to show this. You don't need for certain on the text phrase nor the onomatopoeia since these elements are not visually copied from the source material, thus neglecting any need to show them. (This does not mean the text can't list what comic/issues these are given in). And because our goal is to minimize the amount of non-free used, and you're already not showing all 4 works, you can reduce it down to one, the pilot - the one with the most apparent and obvious visual exactness in the final work. That gives the reader a good understanding of how Litchenstein recreated the comic art in his pop art, and helping the comprehension, but the benefit of this help after the first example significantly wanes. I'm sorry if you feel that's mediocere, but the Foundation has us on a mission to produce free content and minimize non-free , and this is an exact case where the approach to minimize is perfectly clear while still allowing for reasonable uses. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I get your point about the onomatopoeia being a less important source because the similarity is less strong. I had previously proposed two sources. I do not WP:OWN the article and welcome feedback from all interested parties until an agreement can be reached or brute force is necessary. I am willing to settle for 2, but await other feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Just in case it's not clear, I do believe this article can support 2 non-frees - the main art piece itself, and the pilot reference shot - to meet all NFCC. Any more is excessive in light of what the images are being used for. --MASEM (t) 00:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I am willing to reduce it to the main piece, and the sources for the pilot and the jet both of which are very closely related to the subject of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Personally I think the article can meet our criteria using all five of the images as TonyTheTiger and JHeald have argued above and as the article currently stands. Hiding T 22:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion on tag

Whaam! got tagged with {{tone}}. Do people agree with this?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Please get involved at either Wikipedia:Peer review/Whaam!/archive1 or Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Whaam!‎ to help sort this out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1 is underway.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

As we've only had input from a limited number of editors at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1, I think additional input from additional editors would be welcome. Bus stop (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

H. B. Norris?

Does anyone knows what was H. B. Norris' full name? He or she seems to have been British and possibly lived between the second half of the 19th century and early 20th century. --Lecen (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

No one seems to know - I expect you've seen this. Johnbod (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I've heard of Helen Bramwell Norris [7] and Hugh Norris [8]...Modernist (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Modernist. It's certainly Helen Bramwell Norris. --Lecen (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Whaam!

As you may be aware, Whaam! is up at WP:FAC. I am not the best Art researcher, so I am calling for help with sourcing either of the two following claims.

  1. Whaam! is Lichtenstein's most famous/notable work. (currently one source)
  2. Whaam! is one of pop art's most famous/notable works. (currently one and a half sources claiming it and Warhol's Marilyns) are the most famous.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Stamps up for deletion

Many US stamps have been put up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_July_22 -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

California Plein-Air Painting

Proposing this be retitled California Impressionism, which is well supported by scholarship [9], and is a recognized sub-section within American Impressionism. Lede will require rewriting, but not difficult. JNW (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Move proposals should be proposed from the article's talk page, not here czar · · 16:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
But this is the place to let other editors know about art-related issues, especially for articles that do not have too many editors. freshacconci talk to me 17:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Sure, but in order for us to be notified, the discussion has to be actually opened on the talk page czar · · 20:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Done. Name change proposal is here: [10]...Modernist (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Modernist, and for following through with the page move. JNW (talk) 11:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

photos of Zenos Frudakis sculptures

A number of Zenos Frudakis sculpture photos are up for deletion. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 July 26 -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on WikiProject France talk page

Please come participate in the discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France#Painting used in William of Gellone. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Especially if you are familiar with the works of Guercino. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Bill Lewis painting photos

Several of the photos of the paintings on Bill Lewis have been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Files up for deletion, speedy deletion, copyright dispute (July 2013)

These files have been nominated for deletion through various deletion processes, including being up for speedy deletion: (this list is not exhaustive, please check the various deletion processes for other files)

Template:Roy Lichtenstein

Someone changed Template:Roy Lichtenstein so that it is chronological rather than alphabetical. I am having trouble finding things. Which way is preferred?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Files up for deletion, speedy deletion, copyright dispute (August 2013)

These files have been nominated for deletion through various deletion processes, including being up for speedy deletion: (this list is not exhaustive, please check the various deletion processes for other files)

appropriation versus impropriety

Can we have some eyes over here? Wider input might be warranted. Bus stop (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth - I've removed my support - there are too many contradictions; too many bogus references; too much bs; it's a waste of time...Modernist (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Page reference in Parshall & Schoch's Origins of European Printmaking for Bois Protat article?

Does anyone here have access to a copy of Parshall & Schoch's Origins of European Printmaking? I need the page number for a reference in the Bois Protat article---the only reference in the article lacking a cited page. I'm located in Japan, so just popping down to the library isn't an option, and the book isn't available online (or if it is, it's blocked in Japan---happens a lot). Thanks for any help. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It's mentioned at pp 21-23, 33-34, 72 and 123-124...Modernist (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
link [11]...Modernist (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Is the cited info on all those pages? The preview you linked to is blocked in Japan. Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion in depth is on pp 21,22,23, further mention on 33-34, 72 and 123-124...Modernist (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I only needed the page that supports this sentence: "The Bois Protat remained in Protat's family, before it was entrusted to Bouchot." Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd say p 22 from what I can see...Modernist (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Thaks a lot. It was the only thing keeping me from putting the article up for GAN. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

AfD: Safari cards

The collectable article is listed as being within the scope of WikiProject Visual Arts. Members are therefore invited to participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safari cards, an AfD for one such series of collectibles. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Scope of Whaam!

Is an article on an individual work of art a place for a discussion of a more generalized nature? Please see what is specifically at issue here and feel free to weigh in. Bus stop (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Notability question

On the fence as to whether this photographer or his work meets notability guidelines. Plenty of COI involved. Further attention welcome, 76.248.144.216 (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd say no, though the Disney one might provide some WP:RS - none given at present. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
My take is that Impressionist mosaics is a non-notable term, and that the article was created by Roy Feinson or an associate, about whom the strongest assertion to notability I've found so far is a press release: [12]. Even if that's accepted as a source, it still constitutes a one-off mention. I'm less on the fence, but wonder if the mosaic article ought to simply redirect to Photographic mosaic. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you're right. Johnbod (talk) 11:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Getty Museum Open Content

Getty Museum is opening up their rich collection of images. czar · · 02:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, this File:Spring_Alma_Tadema.jpg could need a new version from [13] - it would take days with my internet connection to upload... Christian75 (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

David Fried

Several photos of Fried sculptures are up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_August_16 -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Bernini

Hello, WikiProject Visual arts. You have new messages at WT:WikiProject Bernini#Convert this project into a taskforce.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Anybody have a book?

Anybody have a copy of or have access to a book by Bernice Rose called "The Drawings of Roy Lichtenstein", published in 1987 by the Museum of Modern Art? Links for purpose of identifying the book:[14], [15].

The reason I ask is because I would like to validate a quote supposedly from that book. I encountered the quote at this web site. The quote is:

"Copying from another’s artist’s work had been out of style for a good part of the twentieth century; the avant-garde had increasingly set store by invention. In resorting to old-fashioned copying (and of such 'unartistic' models), Lichtenstein did something characteristic: he made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it. In effect he threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time."

Thanks for any help anyone can offer in this. Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The best I can find, which appears to confirm the source and quote: [16]. Though without access to the entire page, I'm not so.... JNW (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
There's a copy at my university library. I'm heading there this afternoon around 2ish (EST) and can look it up. I guess there was no page given? freshacconci talk to me 14:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Freshacconci—JNW's link above seems to indicate page 17. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Confirmation on page 17: [17] czar · · 15:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Czar. That is almost it in its entirety. Only part of the last sentence is missing. The missing part I am expecting will read "…threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time." Perhaps Freshacconci can confirm that? I would appreciate it. Thanks everybody! Bus stop (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry it took me so long. I didn't get to it when I thought I could. Anyway, yes, that is the exact quote as it appears on page 17 of The Drawings of Roy Lichtenstein. If you need a PDF of the page, let me know. I can email it to you. freshacconci talk to me 15:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Freshacconci—yes, I would like a PDF of that page if it wouldn't be too much trouble. Thank you very much for taking the time to look into it. I would be interested in reading surrounding language on page 17 of that book. If you wouldn't mind e-mailing it to me, that would be great! Thanks a lot! Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

A suspected hoax

I'm way out of my depth in terms of art, but I suspect a hoax. I'm hoping somebody with some art history background would take a look at İl pepe e il peperoncino.

Thanks for giving this a look. SchreiberBike talk 04:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a hoax to me. I hope some more knowledgeable editors weigh in. Bus stop (talk) 04:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Implausible in all kinds of ways--and the external links erase any doubts about the editor's intentions. It's been tagged. Ewulp (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
It's nonsense. Well handled. JNW (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
It's a red link now. Thanks for the help. SchreiberBike talk 22:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Whammy on the Whaam! 50th anniversary drive

Interested parties can see Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Whaam!/archive2#Whammy_on_the_Whaam.21_50th_anniversary_drive.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Whaam! 50th anniversary drive now in WP:TFAR mode

The WP:TFAR nomination for Whaam! is now open at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Whaam.21 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of its first exhibition. I presume that after nearly 700KB of discussions some people may be interested in this nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

€2 Portugal 2011 - Pinto.png

image:€2 Portugal 2011 - Pinto.png has been nominated for deletion and NFCC review, see Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_September_10 and WP:NFCR -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Lof Der Zotheid 500jr Munt 2011.png

image:Lof Der Zotheid 500jr Munt 2011.png has been nominated for deletion and NFCC review, see Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_September_10 and WP:NFCR -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Libraries 2013 - Portland, Oregon

WIKI LOVES LIBRARIES 2013!
You're invited to attend the upcoming "Wiki Loves Libraries" edit-athon. The event will be held from 1–4pm on Sunday, October 13, 2013 at the Portland Art Museum's Crumpacker Family Library, located on the second floor of the Museum's Mark Building (formerly the Masonic Temple).
The edit-athon will focus on the local arts community (but you can work on other topics as well!). It will also kick off the Oregon Arts Project, an on-wiki initiative to improve coverage of the arts in Oregon. Details and signup here!

FYI for project members. Even if you are unable to attend in person, online support and participation is welcome! Also, please feel free to contribute to the Oregon Arts Project, a task force for WikiProject Oregon and WikiProject Visual arts, among others. Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:Blake and invitation for participating

Hey All, just in case you have missed it I thought I would point to the new GLAM-Wiki activities related to the William Blake Archive at WP:Blake. We have expanded a few articles already (including William Blake's sketches of Visionary Heads), and would appreciate support, feedback or other participation! Check out the most recent update about the project or come help us work through our quite long list of "to do's" at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Poetry/William_Blake#To_do including articles about Blake's illustrations, his mythology and artistic collaborators like John Varley (painter)! Hope to see you around, Sadads (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Oceanic art

I've been wondering, is "Oceanic art" (from Oceania) more prevalent than "oceanic art" (marine art)? -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, no question. I've never seen it used in the second sense. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstractionism

Abstractionism currently is a philosophy stub, but I propose turning it into a redirect to abstract art. Please discuss at Talk:Abstractionism if there are objections. Huon (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Okay Hot-Shot, Okay!

Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Okay Hot-Shot, Okay!.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Scope: Art and fine art

Please see Talk:Fine art#Scope: Art and fine art for a question pertaining to the scope of the two articles. czar ♔ 21:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Image placement at MoMA

  • Input appreciated at discussion here regarding the gallery: [18]...Modernist (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

art journals and exhibitions

hi, I have a specific problem with exhibitions. they do represent the main source of information for contemporary art and artists but they are not acknowledge properly on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia they are considered events, but they are not: they are the way artists are selected and curated since the Seventies. it is actually a main source to explain the notability of a contemporary artists. I found

Did you have a similar problem with contemporary artists? can we maybe create a template (info box) for exhibitions following the model of the Template:Infobox book? thank you, --Iopensa (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Archive_13&oldid=1086383766"