Template talk:Young British Artists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 
Archive
Archives

Related artists[edit]

The YBAs themselves can be quite clearly defined as participants in Freeze and/or Sensation, although there may be a few grey areas. But, I'm a bit unsure about the inclusion criteria for 'related artists.' Bob and Roberta Smith and Mike Nelson are related because they came to prominence after the YBAs (I started an article on the Post-YBAs, but the phrase never really caught on, and perhaps it's doomed to be stub!); Martin Creed is related because he was contemporary with the YBAs, but not part of the movement. Anyway, it's no big deal and apologies for being pedantic, just wondered what the thinking was behind the new section.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Original[edit]

Change[edit]

Issues with change[edit]

Related[edit]

This should be "Related artists", as that is what they are and it makes it plain for the reader. Ty 01:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Galleries|Shows[edit]

There is no reason to lump these together. The title looks clunky and it makes the items harder to find. The original is much clearer and easy to find the required item. The two things are not the same. Furthermore the shows have an importance which merits their separation. Ty 01:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Critics and opponents[edit]

No need for two words, when one will do. The problem with "critic" is that it has two meanings, neutral and negative. The people listed are very much in the former camp and have expressed strong opposition to the whole YBA phenomenon. Ty 01:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Red bar at the bottom[edit]

Aesthetically less appealing. Again a bit clunky. Just the one bar at the top has more style. Additionally, there was a long discussion on colour (see archive which was on the consideration of the current design and amount of colour displayed. Ty 01:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"See also" in red bar at the bottom[edit]

Gives this information too much prominence by highlighting it. It is the least important information. Ty 01:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

New cats are:

  1. Category:Art movement and genre templates
  2. Category:Artist (painter) templates

I presume this is because the existing cat of Category:Arts navigational boxes is deprecated. In this case, there needs to be a change, but let's get it right. This is not a movement of painters, although there are some painters in it. Conceptual art would be more fitting. No.1 is OK. Ty 01:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Template colour[edit]

Previous discussion at Template talk:Young British Artists/Archive 1

Hello, the current design and layout of the template seems more-or-less perfected. I am proposing a very slight color variation from background:red→background:#E3170D. The rationale is purely readability: keep the brash, bold, garishness so dominant within YBA, but just mute a fraction in order to promote easier perusing. Any takers? Also there are technical benefits associated with asking the computer to render hex. But, then again, don't ask me what they are.--Artiquities (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a swatch: http://de-de.colourlovers.com/color/E3170D/cadmiumreddeep of proposed variation.--Artiquities (talk) 05:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Current
Proposed colour change


If it ain't broke... There's been no issue for the last three years. The existing colour is also used on other templates in wikipedia, so obviously considered readable by editors. The background colour only affects headings and is not behind all the main links anyway. I prefer the brighter red, which seems more in keeping. The slightly darker tone hints at the military. Ty 12:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Now I see; all this has already been discussed in some detail in 2007. I am arriving a few years late to this. In any case, the "too military" association/perception noted way-back-when is persuasive. I will keep my nose out ... better get on with some actual editing... --Artiquities (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Initiatives with a view to improving the 'pedia are always welcome, as is reasoned and amicable discussion and judgement. Long-standing pages often have discussions of key issues in the archives. Ty 00:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Re color since Inception[edit]

This Template has had an interesting variation in color from the default since its inception...Modernist (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The colour has been the default for the past six weeks. I see no reason for changing it to something else. By the way, I thought WP:BRD was BRD and not BRRD. In the spirit of this idea, I would suggest going back to the default while we discuss changing it. Frietjes (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Truth is it had been as it is until an altercation 6 weeks ago in which I opted to let it be. User:Maunus has finally returned and that's why I changed all 3 today, as a kind of closure. This template was created by the visual arts project and we've been working with it for years. It is at is should be in this current state...Modernist (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
By the way - concerning the Hemingway template - initially User:Truthkeeper88 who nearly singlehandedly brought the Hemingway article to FA status asked me for help in changing the color. I also helped bring the article to FA status - a long time ago and I changed the template color. This precipitated an edit war over color, see link here: Template talk:Ernest Hemingway citation style, and nearly a dozen other editors got involved. And the color change there was minor to say the least...Modernist (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Changing YBA back to red - not brown - which is what it has been for years. See above and debates with Ty. Artiquities (talk) 07:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)