Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21

Piero del Pollaiolo listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Piero del Pollaiolo to be moved to Piero del Pollaiuolo. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. Ham II (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Good edits?

Per User talk:OrlaBan#Your edits, can someone else take a took at these edits, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

renaming Buddhist Painting

Buddhist painting has a name that might be too vauge and refer to a specific Northeast Asian tradition. Can someone look over it and confirm that this is the right title or propose a title change? Immanuelle (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a subclass of Buddhist art, which might be equally vague, but still fine. It's a broad subject. Vexations (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
New article, translated from Japanese or Korean. Pretty useless as it is - could be expanded, or merged to Buddhist art. The text, not the title, is the problem. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Japanese, per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buddhist_painting&type=revision&diff=1072710680&oldid=1072710449&diffmode=source Vexations (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Is Corbin Shaw notable enough for an article?

I was considering writing an article about the artist Corbin Shaw. I made a blank draft page in my userspace, and then tried to make a big list of sources for the article. I found quite a few, but after looking at the list, I feel like many of them aren't very high quality and/or independent (a lot of them are interviews and/or from small independent magazines where I don't know how to judge their editorial standards). I feel like this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON, but I wondered if anyone with more experience could take a quick glance at my list of possible sources and give me any feedback on this. Thanks! Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

GAR for Spirit of the American Doughboy

Spirit of the American Doughboy has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 14:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Good Article reassessment

Sacred Cod has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ɱ (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC re: WikiProject Public Art

Here I've asked if WikiProject Public Art should be converted into a task force of WikiProject Visual arts. Members of this project might be interested in weigh in. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of works by Gaetano Chierici

Project members may wish to comment here. All opinions welcome.4meter4 (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Early Modern Art

Sadly I don't see an alternative to deletion for this completely unreferenced piece, badly translated from Spanish. Thoughts? Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, deletion seems to be the only option. The article is the Google Translate copy paste of the eswiki article Arte de la Edad Moderna (Art of the Modern Age). The eswiki page is a Featured Article there, so it can be translated in a better way in the future. — Golden call me maybe? 10:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Since the above, this has been in and out of the draftspace again. I've said there: "This is a poor-quality translation, completely unreferenced, of an article in the Spanish Wikipedia. It duplicates a number of articles we already have, few of which are linked to, and uses the wrong English terms the whole time, starting with the hopeless title. A considerable amount of well-informed work would be needed to bring it up to any respectable standard, & I can't see this would be worth it. Afd may be the only solution. Thoughts?" Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Editing biographies of artists -- extraneous/over-extensive lists of exhibitions

Hi y'all, quick question about standards for editing and cleaning up articles that are biographies of contemporary artists. Per MOS:Visual Arts, exhaustive lists of an artist's exhibitions should not be included in an article - they end up looking like resumés instead of biographies, the information is only useful for the most important/notable exhibitions an artist took part in. There are many articles that have become just long lists of every single exhibition an artist was a part of, because the CV of the artist was used to fill out the article length. Is it appropriate to pare down these lists? I want to help make these articles in line with the MOS, but I feel weird deleting large amounts of content, even if it's just a long, unhelpful list. An example is Nick Cave's biography -- the exhibition list is just too long and includes nearly every show the artist has participated in. When is it appropriate to cull these kinds of lists?

Thanks for the guidance! 19h00s (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that there should be different criteria for established artists and new artists. For established artists, list only the major shows (individual or with groups whose members at the time illustrate the stage of the career of the subject artist). For new artists, I think even minor roles in group shows are relevant as they are 'getting off the ground.' But in neither case should these lists be exhaustive. Rather, illustrative of the kind of shows they are getting in at that stage of their career. Or informative to the reader, e.g., illustrative of the genre they work in. I know this is still fuzzy and subject to the Wikip writers' judgments... 21:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC) Downtowngal (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I usually trim back CV/resume-like listings of exhibitions, limiting it to about 5 of the most prestigious solo shows, in prose paragraph form, not a list. If they have been in notable group shows like the Venice Biennale, the Whitney Biennial or Documenta, I will add those also in prose form and limited to about 3 shows. To my way of thinking these CV-type lists are not appropriate for an encyclopedia, they belong on the artist's personal website or their gallery's website. For emerging artist who meet our notability criteria, I will include group shows (the prestigious ones) in the 5 highlighted shows. In the case of Nick Cave, I'd remove the resume like list of teaching experience, but add some of that content (current position, and maybe the last one or two) in prose format, not list. When I do see a long list of shows, it usually is in a promotional article or autobiography, which can be red flags. What seems most important are the permanent collections an artist is in, rather than a long list of shows. Netherzone (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both for the help! Definitely agree that works in notable permanent public collections are the most important, and the Nick Cave page needs some more clean-up beyond just the exhibitions list. Appreciate the guidance here. 19h00s (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello I believe I have a link or citation that would be helpful in developing the Jamaica Art article.Jabriyaheckstall (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Pixel Art reconstruction

Hello! I have been recently working to reconstruct the page Pixel art , which was a total disaster and marked as Start quality. After many edits, I think it now warrants a slightly better denomination. The page still requires titanic levels of work of course, but it matches the definition of a C ("The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.") ReffPixels (talk) 09:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The majority of the article is unsourced. If you include references, the article may be promoted to B. — Golden call me maybe? 09:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response,
I agree that its main issue is sources, and that it has a chance of getting all the way to B once sorted, but as it is right now it should still be good enough to qualify as C, since it is definitely not Start. ReffPixels (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Correct. — Golden call me maybe? 09:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child has been nominated for discussion

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ham II (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Recognized content

What is the point of "Recognized content"? We already have a statistics box on the project page that displays all featured and good articles and is automatically updated. Because it is not automatically updated, the recognized content section lacks a large number of GA and FA articles, and some of those that are included are no longer GA or FA. — Golden call me maybe? 08:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I can set this list to be automatically updated, if that would be preferable czar 12:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
That'd be a good solution, yes. — Golden call me maybe? 12:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Recognized content will soon populate by a bot and when it does, we can transclude that page. czar 03:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Bartolommeo Bandinelli listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Bartolommeo Bandinelli to be moved to Baccio Bandinelli. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. Ham II (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Can I have help at this DYK for a painting?

At Template:Did you know nominations/In the ploughed field. Spring, an editor has latched onto a reference stating "peasant goddess" and thinking that it means Flora was being referred to as "a goddess of peasants" in the source instead of "a goddess of spring". The nominator, who is much more of an expert, has stated otherwise. I would like help at the nomination. SL93 (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved with an approved hook. SL93 (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Aldobrandini Madonna and The Aldobrandini Madonna listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Aldobrandini Madonna (by Raphael) to be moved to Garvagh Madonna and The Aldobrandini Madonna (by Titian) to Aldobrandini Madonna. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. Ham II (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Italian names

These are causing trouble at the moment. At Raphael, two Italian editors are insisting he is properly referred to as "Raffaello" (nothing on talk so far), and at Medieval technology an American is insisting that the piped "da Vinci" in the lead be retained (tons on talk). Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

AfD: Pikachu (sculpture)

AfD: Pikachu (sculpture) ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

FAR for El Lissitzky

User:Buidhe has nominated El Lissitzky for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Allegorical Painting of Two Ladies, English School

I am going to put the draft for Allegorical Painting of Two Ladies, English School into article space. I think there is enough there for an article now. Any further help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Art gallery discussion

Hi all, I'm working to expand art gallery Hauser & Wirth's article, and am hoping to bring additional editors to a discussion currently being held at Talk:Hauser & Wirth. If you have the time, please consider stopping by. Looking forward to your input, Maddy at H&W (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Ernst Stuckelberg, Myrthis und Corinna

Does anyone have access to a catalogue raisonné of Ernst Stuckelberg, or the catalogue for Ernst Stückelberg 1831-1903 at the Kunstmuseum Basel in 2003? I'm trying to track down more details about the painting Myrthis und Corinna beim Töpfer Agathon 1897, in particular when it was first exhibited. It seems to be, or at least have been, in the collection of the Kunsthaus Zurich so their collection catalogue may also be of use if anyone has one – unfortunately it's not listed on their online collection catalogue though. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

These libraries do. Might want to start with a reference desk request at the NYPL? Alternatively can request page ranges via WP:RX. czar 06:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Vitruvian Man

Vitruvian Man

There is a discussion at talk:Vitruvian Man#Relevance of material on the Tuscan Order that would welcome fresh eyes, please? John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dances in Iran#Requested move 4 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dances in Iran#Requested move 4 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The Young Lincoln

In case you were wondering what Abe Lincoln looked like shirtless... ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Murals of Kobe Bryant

Anyone care to help expand Murals of Kobe Bryant? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Museo del Prado

Comments please on the disagreement here. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

AfD:Disney Fab 50 Character Collection

Disney Fab 50 Character Collection: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney Fab 50 Character Collection

---Another Believer (Talk) 15:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussions

Talk:Rogier_van_der_Weyden#Infobox_again and Talk:Shussan_Shaka#Requested_move_4_August_2022 - very quiet over the holidays! Comments welcome there. Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge discussion of La Vierge aux anges

Song of the Angels, by William-Adolphe Bouguereau

A section page from Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Glendale) that entitled #Song of the Angels, should be merge at La Vierge aux anges (see the proposal discussion at Talk:La Vierge aux anges#Proposed merge discussion). JeBonSer (talk | sign) 00:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Robe violette et Anémones

The problem: needs another 250 words for a proposed DYK challenge. The solution: drink more. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Opinion on Early Modern Art

The very detailed article Early modern art has been moved to draft space by @Johnbod without comment (except from "Back to draft space - still needs a lot of work").

This is a translation from a featured article in Spanish, and is thus very detailed and extensively sourced. Johnbod seems to suggest that the article has issues relating to the terminology in English -- however, as neither I nor the person who translated it are experts in this field, it is hard for us to judge how much work would be required to fix the problems, so I would like to get the opinion of the community.

--> Do you feel that this is an article that we could keep in the mainspace and improve over time, or that it has fundamental issues that cannot be fixed easily?

Note: this article was previously moved to draft space because the initial translator had done a poor job, but has since then been considerably improved, so I think it deserves fresh pairs of eye 7804j (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I haven't taken a deep look at the article but from a first glance, it does seem to have quite a lot of issues. For starters, those walls of text on image captions in lead need to go; most of the article is unsourced and the article flow is very hard to keep up with. — Golden call me maybe? 20:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
(ec) Indeed it does! The article begins "Early Modern Art is the period or temporal subdivision of history of art that corresponds to the Early Modern Age. It should not be confused with the concept of modern art, which is not chronological but aesthetic, and which corresponds to certain manifestations of contemporary art." And goes on for 96k bytes. This is one of a series of very large WP:CONTENTFORK paid-for machine translations commissioned] by 7804j. In several of them, as here, the problems begin with the title, and don't get any better. A quick brush-over of the grammar etc isn't enough. I think we need a centralized place to consider what to do about them. See the article talk also - it's not just me! Others relevant to this project: History of engraving (see talk), Ancient Greek crafts, The Gardener (painting) and Art Nouveau in Milan (maybe ok, as non-forks). That's from just one of several editors involved, Johnbod (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the image captions have way too much text, and that it could benefit from a better structure as it is currently very dense; however, I am not sure that these types of issues require to take down the article entirely.
As for the title, maybe it is not the best, but from a quick Google search I found quite a few references to the term "Early modern art" which seems to map to this time period (example 1, 2), so it isn't entirely obvious to me that it is incorrect. 7804j (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, regardless of what the University of Basel thinks, "Early Modern Art" suggests to English-speakers "Early Modern art" (of the 1890s, say), rather than "Early Modern art". Neither term is in regular use, if only because of the fatal ambiguity, and it is easier and better to use the traditional art history demarcations of Renaissance, Baroque etc, rather than bring in a vaguely-defined concept from general history. The main trouble is just that the article duplicates much better material elsewhere on wp. The "Oriental art" section is beyond embarassing, and unusable. Most of the article just gives airy nuanceless summaries of political developments, followed by a list of names of artists with vague indications of styles. Dutch Golden Age painting gets one sentence, and this one on Van Dyck has to do for all of Flemish baroque painting: "Anton van Dyck found his audience in England, whose peculiar socio-political-religious situation was an intermediate between the two alternatives of the time" - whatever that is supposed to mean.
The problems vary by article - Ancient Greek crafts is a wierd one - a theoretical dissertation on the concepts, status and conditions of Ancient Greek craft-workers, but nary a word on what they might have made. No links to the 100+ articles we have in the tree under Ancient Greek pottery, or the sections in Ancient Greek art on that, metalwork, coins, mosaics etc. As a template at the bottom of the Spanish says, it is actually a 2nd hand translation of "Artisanat en Grèce antique" from French wp - all the refs are French. Suitably renamed, and with some material added, it could stay. Johnbod (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Paint mixing

I have promoted Paint mixing to mainspace. Please feel free to improve however you can. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Are photographers navboxes applicable for visual arts parent categories

For example, the best example would be {{Ansel Adams}} (and maybe the worse, {{Jessica Lange}}, where I have removed the parent category Category:American artist navigational boxes, and then stopped after a few to bring the question here. I've been assuming these categories are for painter and sculptor templates, keeping the categories limited to the ancient arts, and not for related visual arts (filmmakers, photographers, architects, etc.). Opinions? (I'll ping Mistico Dois, who does great work on visual arts navboxes). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

For example, and this is what I'm basing it on, you wouldn't add Category:Deer in art to all the photographs of deer on Wikipedia although, if a painting or sculpture prominently features a deer, it would qualify. I reverted my edits and added back the category to the navboxes pending this discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Just one more thought. Would publishing a book of photographs qualify the navbox in the "American artist navigational boxes" category, i.e. {{Jessica Lange}} above, and the navbox of filmmaker. {{Larry Clark}}. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
The category of photography as a visual art has been established for a long time, in my opinion and I suppose most art historians and critics would agree with me, despite the fact that it only appeared in the 19th century and only had the status as an art form recognized in the 20th century. H. W. Janson landmark History of Art (1962) already includes photography. You can see by yourself all the museum categories where the historical photographies from art photographers appear, like Alfred Stieglitz, Henri Cartier-Bresson, etc. Architecture is also a visual art of course, if you remember Giorgio Vasari's historical Lives of Artists, it is dedicated to architects, painters and sculptors. But I think since architecture is very different from painting, sculpture and photography, it would make more sense to have a specific category for architects by nationality. I think when we reach the number in 50 in the Architect navigational boxes, I will start that category. Regards.Mistico Dois (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
About the individual categories. I think if someone becomes known or as an important work as a photographer it does qualify themself for the photographers category, even if they are more better known in other category, like actors or filmmakers. Jessica Lange, for example, does have several photography books published and they have been critically acclaimed.Mistico Dois (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree it's a visual art, and that photographers belong in the photographers category. My question concerns adding photographer's navboxes in artist navbox categories (i.e. Category:American artist navigational boxes). A deer in a photograph, would that photograph be within Category:Deer in art (categories and navboxes are two-thirds of the "Lists, categories, and navboxes" trifecta). My opinion would be no to both, as a navbox categorized as an artist's navbox brings to mind painters and sculptors and, to myself at least, nothing else. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I have to disagree. I think the categories concerning Category:Artists by nationality should include painters, sculptors, but also other visual artists, like photographers, engravers, installation artists, artistic designers, for example. About what you mentioned concerning Category:Deer in art, I think it would make sense to create in a near future a category for Category:Wildlife photographs, like there is already Category:Landscape photographs, for the photographers who have worked in particular concerning animals, like Peter Beard and Sebastião Salgado, among others. There are still very few entries concerning individual photographies, compared with paintings and sculptures, so I think its still to soon for that.Mistico Dois (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Larry Clark published a book of photographs. That's one entry as a photographer in his navbox, yet his template is in Category:American artists navigational boxes. Templates of artists (I mean painters and sculptors) should conform to the unofficial five-entry rule (many now don't), but Clark, for example, has one entry relating to his photographs. Not enough to fit the category, even if it is open to photographers, which I argue it shouldn't be because that makes way for filmmakers and others to be similarly linked. Painting and sculpture are hands-on formed works of art, a photograph of a bowl of fruit isn't a still-life painting of a bowl of fruit nor should it be classified in a similar manner. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Larry Clark does have an important and controversial photographic work, with several books published. He also appears at the International Center of Photography website: [1] I understand your point but there are also other templates with at least five entries, and this sometimes includes only one artwork. I am doing my best to expand them when I locate them. Thats why I always try to start a template with at least six artworks. I mantain my opinion that the artists by nationality categories should include visual arts as usually understood in art history. Cinema is also an art form but of a different kind, thats why they have their own templates. Visual artists who work in cinema and painting or photography can appear in both categories, like for example Template:Julian Schnabel.Mistico Dois (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Listings of photographers or photos in Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Article alerts seem nonexistent, so some lines remain drawn on Wikipedia between photographers, painters, and sculptors. All I'm saying is that one of those lines could be keeping things like Category:French artist navigational boxes exclusively to painters and sculptors. I'm sure Claude Monet might have taken some very good photographs if he'd a mind to, but didn't, and letting Michaelangelo loose with a camera would have given the world some iconic photographs. But turning that around, notable photographers have always had access to paints and sculpting tools but I can't think of a one who could actually use them well enough to create a well-known work. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Added The Song of the Lark

Have added The Song of the Lark (painting) in case anyone would like to fill it in, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Feedback on draft for artist Laura Berman

Hello member of WikiProject Visual arts. I was hoping someone could offer feedback on a draft I created about Laura Berman, a monoprint maker based in Kansas City, Kansas at User:W12SW77/sandbox/Laura Berman I have a COI as a paid consultant for WhiteHatWiki, which was hired by Laura Berman. Thank you for your help!W12SW77 (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It comes across as okay to me, based on Berman having works in several public gallery collections and also some evidence of passing WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable secondary publications. Sionk (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Zinc oxide

An article that been involved with (Zinc oxide ) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Zinc white). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Charles Billich

I saw a mention to this article on a page I just deleted and decided to check it out. The article is tagged for being like a resume and only has one source. Apparently, this artist is "award-winning" and prominent in Australia but aside from a few short articles in an online search, I mainly came across sales/auction/gallery sites when looking for more information on him. I originally went to WikiProject Biography for the Arts talk page to look for help but it looks like that task force is inactive so I came here. Not sure whether this article can be improved or should just be PROD'd as I'm not familiar with artist biographies on Wikipedia. Just posting here in case there are editors who are more experienced with working with artist's websites and are able to judge notable artists from those who just have a good marketing team. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Commons trying to pull File:Dignity (34922267671).jpg from the Dignity statue page

Wouldn't fair use per "essential to describe the page" be a criteria for saving this beautiful photograph of a statue? Or can someone transfer it from Commons to Wikipedia? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Can someone please upload this photo to English Wikipedia and fill out a fair use exception for the Dignity (statue) page, I'm not able to do so. Thanks. Being told at commons that it will be deleted there. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: Done. — Golden call me maybe? 12:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! I have no idea if it will last here if commons gets rid of it, and hopefully the sculptor himself can arrange permission (I left a note at the commons deletion page about possibly making that arrangement). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Artworks damaged, destroyed or stolen in the 2023 Brasilia attacks

New article: Artworks damaged, destroyed or stolen in the 2023 Brasilia attacks ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Cartoon painting

Please, can you help me to find the name of this painting? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.232.235.244 (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The Embrace, Boston

The Embrace is getting a lot of attention, if any project members want to help improve. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

More common name: "Abduction of Ganymede" vs "Rape of Ganymede"?

Please see: Talk:The Abduction of Ganymede#More common name? Paul August ☎ 14:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed 		Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.62) 		Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  1. Adolfo Farsari
  2. An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump
  3. Dürer's Rhinoceros
  4. Four Times of the Day
  5. Freedom Monument
  6. Triptych, May–June 1973

Prison art

New stub, created by another editor: Prison art.

Improvements welcome! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Bunbury Regional Art Gallery (BRAG)

Hi all, could I get some feedbak on my draft: Draft:Bunbury Regional Art Gallery BRAG87 (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Plato's Academy mosaic#Requested move 5 April 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Plato's Academy mosaic#Requested move 5 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Mount Rushmore

A discussion about the artwork Shine of Democracy is underway that has taken a turn that it being labeled as a sculpture is just a point of view. Some kind of natural formation? See Mount Rushmore#Shrine of Democracy as ALTNAME. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Vkhutemas

I have nominated Vkhutemas for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Intervention Art

Hi there, I have made suggestions in the talk page to improve this article... b'art homme 19:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Is "Inverted Earth" Article a Candidate for AFD?

@Licks-rocks: In Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology, I proposed that the article about Inverted Earth to be a prime candidate for AFD because the concept of an "inverted Earth" is a trivial, nonnotable idea lacking any real scientific application in the Earth sciencesand an apparently off the wall and geologically unique topic.

Since this idea started out as a work of art, it is suggested, that I obtain comments on its notability from editors at Wikiproject Visuals Art since the editors at WikiProject Geology lack the needed expertise in visual arts. Would this article be a prime candidate for AFD? If it is agreed that it is suitable for AFD, I will try to figure out how to do it. Paul H. (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The Jimmy Carter statue page about to be devoid of its photograph

Link to the image

I removed the speedy deletion tag at Statue of Jimmy Carter's Commons image page, asking the nominator to both go through a deletion discussion and add the image to Wikipedia. This would ruin the page's aesthetic quality just as the subject is literally dying. Can we try and save this one from the Commons Curse, or add it to Wikipedia under fair use? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Now photograph is up for deletion. This statue is the main artistic depiction of Jimmy Carter, anywhere in the United States or the world. Since this image illustrates the article, keeping it on English Wikipedia would easily meet fair use. More at the link. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
The original creator of the image uploaded it here, hopefully that's enough to keep it on English Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Three Soldiers images to be removed...

...can someone upload these for fair use on English Wikipedia, especially the main image. Thanks. The deletion discussion may be important per JWilz12345 if this WikiProject would ask the United States Congress to make a change in its law (maybe through Speaker of the House McCarthy's office). Randy Kryn (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

JWilz12345, the law change should be discussed and organized. Maybe Jimbo can assist in this. Some of the Republicans may be interested in changing the law, especially if pointed out that losing things like this image would be a factor. Reminiscent of Martin Luther King's family not allowing use of his and Hall's "I Have a Dream" speech to be user per copyright. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Here's a map of freedom of panorama for reference, note that Canada, England, Australia, India, and even China has it for public artworks, but not the U.S. This can be changed. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn this is a global effort and not just an effort by enwiki users. Best to air your call at meta-wiki project. Note that there is an extinct proposal on Commons, at c:Commons:Freedom of panorama campaign. Ping the users who responded to my concern on this Village Pump forum as well as one user who talked to me at my Meta-wiki talk page: @Kaldari, Jmabel, and Slowking4:. I'm actually supportive of any actions or advocacies made by Wikipedians of countries with no FOP, like the South African moves and the advocacy in our country. Should the U.S. now have complete FOP, the thousands of deleted photos on Commons, as well as hundreds of deleted enwiki local files, can be undeleted and enwiki articles be enriched with illustrations. The open question, are there any user from the U.S. willing to make this very challenging move? I would expect big roadblocks for such advocacy in the U.S.: note the Gaylord v. United States case as well as several other cases which I included at Freedom of panorama#United States. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  • First and foremost, can someone move File:The Three Soliders, Vietnam Veterans Memorial.jpg into English Wikipedia before it's removed from Commons and list it as fair use for its article. As for the worldwide effort, the focus should be on the U.S. for English Wikipedia as, mentioned above, all the other major English speaking nations already have the right. Thanks for your long answer, maybe time, with the new House of Representatives, to follow-up on this. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I feel encouraged whenever I see a fellow American care about freedom of panorama. I want to be cautiously optimistic about the efforts to grant FOP to the Philippines and South Africa. I don't have high hopes for this Congress to pass anything substantial but for freedom of panorama to be more like Canada or the UK, you'd have to do a new copyright bill, and copyright falls under the Judiciary committee. House Judiciary Chairman is Jim Jordan and I think House Judiciary probably has other thoughts on their mind other than changing copyright laws. Freedom of panorama is probably more important than anything they would do this session, but there will be sculptors and artistic craftsmen that will no doubt strongly oppose any change to the law. Hopefully, efforts in Philippines and South Africa bring positive results. Abzeronow (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Henry Moore

I have nominated Henry Moore for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Aurochs has an RFC

Aurochs has an RFC for how to design its cladogram. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 89.206.112.13 (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue

This article has uses svg art of a geometrical representation of the paintings in question rather than an image of the paintings themselves. You can open up the svg and see it's just code for three broad banks of colors for each of the paintings. The real paintings have far more imperfections: https://www.wikiart.org/en/barnett-newman/whos-afraid-of-red-yellow-and-blue-i-1970

I discovered this because the paintings have been coming up in online discourse a lot recently. Would it be possible to get a high-quality image of the paintings on here? There was a prior image, I believe, which was deleted in 2018 per this deletion request, which is why I'm loath to pick one myself. Brirush (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit wars on 'One source' tag, and museum sources as "primary"

There have been a few edit wars lately, the latest at Self-Portrait. Between the Clock and the Bed., over adding one source tags. I've thought that museum sources are enough to assert Wikipedia notability and a one-source tag is not needed. A similar question has arisen lately about if a museum source for a painting is a primary source, which I've maintained they are not. Comments welcome, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Why not just add another source? — Golden call me maybe? 12:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
That's not the point. Probably hundreds if not thousands of visual arts pages have proven notability by listing museum sources (which are not primary), so if editors are tagging these pages with cluttersome unneeded tags it would be best to have a link to assure them that the museum source is enough. This has been a question at some draft articles as well, so it is a guideline which should be clearly described and listed at WP:NOTABILITY as a visual arts notability stance. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
As much as hate to say it, both sides have good arguments, but in spite of that equivalence, I don’t think tagging is the way forward. Instead, there should be a minimal effort by taggers to find a source. If they can’t find one, then they should be allowed to add the tag. My issue with drive-by tagging is that the burden is shifted to the editor from the tagger, and that’s where I draw the line. If you are going to put the effort into tagging pages, then at least put the minimal effort into trying to fix the problem. That’s always been my position and I wish the community would accept it as standard procedure. In other words, maintenance tags should only be added after the tagger has tried to address the problem, not before. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
The point is that, especially for major museums, the owning museum is generally the best and fullest source, and certainly the easiest to find online. In the case of basic things like measurements and technical examinations, all other sources normally depend on museum information, since art historians are not allowed to conduct their own intrusive research. They are not primary. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to change the default format of galleries

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Galleries. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Statue of Zhang Side

AfD: Statue of Zhang Side ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Fungi in art

There is a discussion on the talk page of a new article, Fungi in art, by a new editor. The article needs improving/trimming and could benefit from additional eyes of editors experienced in the visual arts. Netherzone (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Paintings

Please, can you help me to find the real-life models for these cartoon's paintings: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.169.94 (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Statue at AfD

---Another Believer (Talk) 03:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Process for writing in-depth articles on artists

Hello to fellow Wikipedians who are into Visual arts. I have a general question about writing in-depth articles about artists. How do you manage the resources that you refer to while developing the articles? I'm often overwhelmed by the amount of references that I've collected during my research and often end up not writing it, even if I have the structure right in place. Would love to know the thoughts of the editors here, especially who have worked on GAs or FAs. Thanks and Regards - DesiBoy101 (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

My experience in visual arts primarily involves writing about paintings. However, I imagine that your problem is not specific to writing about artists, but rather to writing articles in general. Here's my usual approach: I personally find it challenging to write an article by starting with a large collection of sources that each provide only small bits of information about the subject. It can be overwhelming to sift through all the sources and piece together a cohesive narrative. Instead, I prefer to start with one reliable source that provides comprehensive information about the subject and use it as the basis for my article. Then, I can expand or amend the text with information from additional sources. This helps me avoid feeling overwhelmed. Hope that helps. — Golden call me maybe? 09:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, concentrate on a few high quality, independent reliable sources to build the article. Once you've laid out the basics you can build the article using other sources. Usually it's a good idea to nail down WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST first. If the artist has been widely written about and/or has works in multiple public collections that's a good sign of notability. Sionk (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you @Golden and @Sionk for your valuable insights. The idea of using one reliable and comprehensive source as a base sounds pretty good. My focus is mainly on Indian artists since the prominent ones don't have enough content on their Wiki pages. Especially given the significant coverage that they've had during their lifetimes and beyond. So hopefully I can change that gradually. I also see above that the Indian art page (and related) is in the task list for improvement. What kind of development is being expected in there? Some inputs would be helpful. DesiBoy101 (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"Art truck"

Art truck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems like it should be an overview article, much like art bike and art car, instead of being a redirect to Japanese art trucks. Airbrushed trucks in North America, or trucks with paint schemes, lights and bells in Southeast Asia, and other such, would seem to lack coverage. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Lack of Australia painters

I've noticed a lack of Australian painters and given myself the task of adding some. I finished Gray Smith and I'm now working on Peter Upward. I'm new to WP and was wondering how to get a higher assessment of the content. Gray's article is a C-class. Love to hear anyone's thoughts on the process of content assessment. Finrod.Ancalime (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

C seems about right, though one could stretch to B. Frankly these assessments don't matter much at all. Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Identify_an_art_award

If you have input, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Blue Heart (film)

Does this pass notability? It is attempted to include reception section. I'm a draft reviewer without specialization in this topic area and would appreciate your feedback. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 16:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to merge the categories "art by country" and "visual art by country"

Currently the two categories are duplicates and it needs more votes to merge them, check here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 17#Category:Art by country. Solidest (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Your proposal is actually to merge "Art" into "Visual arts", which is slightly more controversial. Sionk (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I would say that my suggestion is rather to turn the three categories (Art, Arts, Visual art | by country) into two and leave one as a redirect. And the discussion of how to do it better is at the link. Solidest (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

ecoartspace

Requesting an article on ecoartspace.org if someone is interested in creating it 2601:8C3:8600:12E0:AC08:4CF9:B6F1:D63F (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion for statue depicting Moses

Discussion participation welcome. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Post-processing photographs of paintings

A question has come up at WT:DYK#Portrait of a Creole Woman with Madras Tignon regarding adjusting the exposure of a photograph of a painting. I would appreciate input from the experts here. Tou could respond directly on the DYK page, thanks. There's a bit of time pressure since this hits the main page in a few days. RoySmith (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

List of public art in Toronto

I'm working on List of public art in Toronto, if any project members are interested in collaborating. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Oscar Allain#Requested move 6 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Oscar Allain#Requested move 6 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive2

Drop by at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive2. I'm trying to get this relisted at WP:FA. It is one of 17 paintings listed at vital articles level 4 and one of 10 contemporary art works listed at vital articles level 5.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  • I know I have been less active of late, but this is regarded as one of the 17 most vital painting subjects on WP. @Johnbod, Modernist, and Ceoil: have been active discussants in some of my past WP:VA painting FACs. Of 10 contemporary art works listed at vital articles level 5, I have brought 3 of them through FAC successfully with commentary from Ceoil (all 3) Modernist (2 of 3) and Johnbod (1 of 3). The final nomination that succeeded for Campbell's Soup Cans included Johnbod and Ceoil. I have added significant content and need help working through FURs.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  • That was 13 years ago....Modernist (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Yeah. I have little interest these days in FURs, and unfortunately little time available for wiki, but wish you the best given the series' huge importance in 20th c art history. Ceoil (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Art Bridges article

I want to bring to the attention of this community a draft I have for the Art Bridges Foundation. The foundation is an art lending nonprofit aimed at sharing American art across the country. Currently, there is not a Wikipedia article on Art Bridges, however there are enough qualified sources for there to be one. Based on these sources, I have created in my user space a draft on the Art Bridges Foundation.

I'm asking others to review, because I am representing Art Bridges Foundation through my work with the Walton family office and have a conflict of interest. If there are any questions, please feel free to ask them on the Talk Page of the draft. Thank you Kt2011 (Talk · COI:Walton family) 13:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems ok to go to me, but I don't know how to handle the AFC templates. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Andy Warhol/Sunday B Morning

I see Andy Warhol prints all over the internet published by Sunday B Morning. Can anyone help me find a WP:RS that explains these prints. It seems that they do prints of Marilyn, Flowers and Soup Cans and may also do Mao and Dollar prints. Non-RS or at least questionable RS versions of the story are here and here--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that The arts, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Request for review

Hi. I have a draft article about Gjura Stojana in my userspace and wonder if one or two people from this WikiProject would mind just giving it a once over to look for any issues before I move it into mainspace. It's not exactly my first rodeo, but I'd like someone else to look it over for good measure since I learned about the subject through one of his distant relatives. Nobody asked me to write it, and I don't stand to gain anything, but I guess that might constitute something like a weak COI so I'll err on the side of caution and ask for feedback first. See also my note on the talk page. Thanks! — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Just marking this as done (though if it's of interest to anyone else, they're of course welcome to take a look, too). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguating Artemisia Gentileschis

Please see Talk:Susanna and the Elders (Gentileschi, Stamford) § Article title (move?) for a discussion on how to disambiguate a painting by Artemisia Gentileschi, which I think has a bearing on how we disambiguate other works by her and by her father Orazio Gentileschi, and also by other pairs (etc.) of artists who share a surname. Ham II (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Composition X (Kandinsky)

Would someone here please take a look at Composition X (Kandinsky), it belongs in this Project, I think, but is entirely in French. I noticed due to the high number of infobox entries that weren't in english.Naraht (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks an IP user un-translated the article from English, for some reason. Thanks for flagging it and fixing it. Cheers! ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 17:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hair and Mazu in art

(But not the same art.)

"Draft:Hair in African sculpture" has been declined, but is promising, I think. It's the creation of a student who hasn't reappeared since February. It needs the attention of somebody with access to a small amount of academic material (none of which seems obscure or promises to be elusive).

"Draft:Celebrating Matsu" was created (as part of "WikiProject Taiwan 1000") by someone who disappeared in late September; either it's obscure (even contradictory) in places (see Draft talk:Celebrating Matsu) or I'm just thick. I think it needs the attention of somebody who can get hold of, and can comprehend, material on art published in Taiwan and in Chinese -- which also neither seems obscure nor promises to be elusive, (I neither am in Taiwan nor read Chinese.)

It seems obvious to me that both of these drafts are about subjects that are notable, both in Wikipedia's rather bizarre sense and in the everyday sense of the word. Anyone here up for tinkering with either of these drafts? -- Hoary (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Cover art

Does cover art need to be updated to incorporate content regarding artwork associated with digital publications?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Matthew Brettingham

I have nominated Matthew Brettingham for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Notable watercolor and colored pencil works

At WP:VA, I am Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5#Add_View_of_the_World_from_9th_Avenue, i am nominating View of the World from 9th Avenue for its prominence as a work using watercolor and colored pencils. I don't think we have either a watercolor or colored pencil work at VA. All of Georgia O'Keeffe's watercolor work seems to be redlinks. What are the most prominent watercolor works and colored pencil works in art history?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

If you'd added Category:Watercolor paintings to the articles (don't worry, I've done it now), you'd have got an idea from the 80 works there. Category:Drawings is even larger. Many works in both include elements in different colours & media. Of course, what is famous about View of the World from 9th Avenue is the printed reproductions. For O'Keeffe, The Flag (O'Keeffe painting) and A Storm are non-oils, as are many works in articles on series. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
User:Johnbod, thx for the quick response and action. A mouseover on O'Keeffe's template presents those as paintings. Should the intro verbiage be modified? Where would you rank View among non-oils and against these O'Keeffes? I am still trying to understand how vitality of WP:VA differs from notability and importance. Thus, I am not sure what scale/dimension I am asking you about. Feel free to advise as you see fit.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Watercolours are still "paintings" as they use a brush. I don't worry too much about VA, & this project doesn't have "importance" ratings, as really it's impossible and pointless to try & weight say View against Vitruvian Man or other Leonardo drawings. The overall term museums often use is "works on paper" & I think that group should be represented in the VA lists. Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
@Johnbod:, I've added the category you mentioned to The Flag (O'Keeffe painting). What category should A Storm be in?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Also, why do we not have a Category:Magazine covers?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, we could I suppose. I've now set up Category:Pastel drawings (adding A Storm) and Category:Pastel, which need to be populated, and perhaps gouache needs similar treatment. Johnbod (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nathan Hale (statue)#Requested move 6 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nathan Hale (statue)#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sagrestia Nuova (New Sacristy)#Requested move 6 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sagrestia Nuova (New Sacristy)#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Statue of Roberto Clemente (Louisville, Kentucky)#Requested move 8 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Statue of Roberto Clemente (Louisville, Kentucky)#Requested move 8 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Francisco Venegas#Requested move 11 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Francisco Venegas#Requested move 11 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Larry Koon#Requested move 12 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Larry Koon#Requested move 12 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:7:11AM 11.20.1979 79°55'W 40°27'N#Requested move 4 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:7:11AM 11.20.1979 79°55'W 40°27'N#Requested move 4 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 06:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Oprah Winfrey (painting)

New stub: Oprah Winfrey (painting) ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Are all statues considered monuments/memorials?

Inviting project members to weigh in here:

---Another Believer (Talk) 20:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Increase_default_thumbnail_size_from_220px_to_250px

May be of interest to people. Happy New Year to all! Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to double check on a WP:VA listing

At Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5#Listing_of_I_Love_New_York 5, we are discussing the proper listing of I Love New York  5, which is the famous first use of the Heart symbol  5 as a logograph for the word love, leading to ubiquitous use of I ❤... in marketing materials worldwide. It got listed as a specific work of visual arts. I want to make sure that no one has a problem with moving it from specific works of art. If anyone has an opinion, drop a note there preferably or here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at United States Capitol rotunda

A request to uppercase 'Rotunda' is ongoing at Talk:United States Capitol rotunda#Requested move 22 January 2024, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Artist collectives

What are the most important visual artist collectives articles? Where does Der Blaue Reiter rank in comparison to School of Paris, COBRA, Nazarene movement, Barbizon School, Die Brücke. Do we have an article for the groups that brought forth Impressionism or Cubism?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

First Impressionist Exhibition, an editable draft

Draft:First Impressionist Exhibition, created by GranCavallo at the suggestion of Albiart, an important article topic that's long overdue. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Check out what GranCavallo has built in three days. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

And is now mainspaced at First Impressionist Exhibition. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Edward Clark (artist)#Requested move 30 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Edward Clark (artist)#Requested move 30 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Artist's credit in infobox captions

There is a discussion in progress at Talk:Abigail Adams#Caption which could use more input, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This is still occurring if others would like to join in. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

History of tattooing proposed split

Hi all, I'm considering splitting History of tattooing into a separate article on indigenous and traditional tattooing practices. Given the size of the article, it doesn't feel very readable and I think having a separate page would allow people to expand on the contemporary practices of these traditions. I'm alerting some of the WikiProjects attached to the article; please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this idea :) ForsythiaJo (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Identity of a painting

Does anyone know the name or creator of this painting? First saw it earlier today, and I don't think we have an article on it. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Queer art#Requested move 11 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Queer art#Requested move 11 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Killarnee (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Saints

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Saints, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Ham II (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Ikebana

Lead section too short. If anyone could summaries points. Also requires additional sources. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 16:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

List of Renaissance artists

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Archive_21&oldid=1221504372"