Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts:


Source and artist of painting of Alexander, Bucephalus and Diogenes?[edit]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Source and artist of painting of Alexander, Bucephalus and Diogenes? -- Jeandré, 2011-06-02t17:38z

Greetings from GLAM-Wiki US[edit]

Invitation to join GLAM-Wiki US

Hello! This WikiProject aligns closely with the work of the GLAM-Wiki initiative (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums), a global community of volunteers who assist cultural institutions with sharing resources with Wikimedia. GLAM-Wiki US is a new community initiative focused on organizing cultural collaborations within the United States. GLAM organizations are diverse and span numerous topics, from libraries and art museums to science centers and historic sites. We currently have a backlog of interested institutions- and we need your help!

1rightarrow.pngAre you interested in helping with current or future GLAM projects? Join→ Online Volunteers

We hope you'll join the growing GLAM-Wiki community in the US. Thank you!
-Lori Phillips (Talk), US Cultural Partnerships Coordinator
For more information visit→ The GLAM:US portal or GLAM-Wiki on Outreach

Peer review Museum de Oude Wolden[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Editør (talkcontribs) 12:19, 25 August 2013‎ (UTC)

Add DAAO record field to infobox[edit]

We'd like to provide links to high quality biographies of Australian artists via the Design and Art Australia Online project. The DAAO is an academic biography datastore funded by Australian universities and government. We propose adding the daao_record field as per the documentation page.

It has been suggested that we use the {{authority_control}} instead. However the NLA (National Library of Australia) is already a Wikipedia Authority control source. The NLA often prominently displays biographies from the DAAO.

For comparison please see our example record at Mike Parr. This uses the NLA authority control and links to the DAAO biography in the external links section. We'd like to see the DAAO link in the infobox.

Queen Victoria (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have any thoughts on this or should I just go ahead and submit a template edit request? Queen Victoria (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The infobox is the wrong place for external links to other resources such as this. -- Netoholic @ 21:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

St. Jerome hoax?[edit]

I just had to clean up a number of obvious hoaxes committed by (talk · contribs · WHOIS). A number of his edits were to the article Francesco St Jerome, but even after I removed the obvious stuff, I was left with a nagging sensation that the whole article is itself a hoax. There are no proper references, only two external links, one of which hits a paywall while the other leads to a rather dodgy looking "official" page. The image at Commons, claiming to be by Palma il Giovane, has as its source the "Mark Lawrence Art Collection", a name which resembles one occurring in this contribution by the IP. My knowledge of art history is somewhat sketchy, so I ask the members of this project if you think the article and picture are bona fide or not. I have done a fair bit of image googling for various combinations of "Palma" and "Jerome"/"Girolamo", but to no avail. Oh, and to add to the confusion, there is the equally dubious File:Palmavecchio032.JPG which claims to be by Palma il Vecchio. Favonian (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Good catch. I'd suggest AfD, and removing the image from the artist's biography. Whether or not this is for real, it's never been adequately sourced. At worst it's an attempt by the painting's owner or representative to promote it, complete with the unsourced estimated value. JNW (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
The story is fairly clear from the "press" page of the website, which reprints the Times story (it says) from 2008. It doesn't seem implausible to me, but how firm the attribution now is isn't clear. It doesn't seem to have been sold yet. The other picture was uploaded in Jan 2008, apparently before cleaning & reattribution. I agree all the German stuff looks hoaxy, but that came long after. Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Change of heart, per Johnbod; the articles listed at the website's 'press' page can be verified through Google searches. JNW (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks ever so much for your input! I'll leave the article be, though I really wish the living person associated with the picture would not claim to be the Lord of Emborough or own the fifth version of The Scream. Favonian (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@JNW, Johnbod: This is going to sound almost cloak-and-daggerish. I have received an anonymous hint drawing my attention to a couple of news items in the Reading Post and The Daily Telegraph. It would appear that Mark Lawrence, the happy owner of Francesco St Jerome and several other interesting paintings, has some problems with verifiability. The Jerome isn't mentioned, but the alleged fifth version of The Scream is. The IP referenced above and intimately associated with the Jerome article boasted about this painting and made unsubstantiated claims about a "Markus Saxe Albertine Wetten Lawrence Von Wettenberg", while, according to the Telegraph article, some of the pictures belonging to Mr. Lawrence of Reading come from "the Wetten family, who originated in the former Duchy of Saxony". All in all, I believe there's reason to believe that the IP editor is Mr. Lawrence and that the source quoted in the article may no longer be sufficient. There may well at some point be material for an article about the "affair", but there would be tricky BLP issues. Meanwhile, we have to figure out what to do with Jerome. I'm inclined to AfD it, but would like to hear your opinions. Favonian (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. I take it we don't have articles on the other works? The Jerome should have been referenced & toned down a bit after the AFD really. You might just say "doubts have been cast" bla bla & reference the stories. The Jerome is small and very fiddly & not normally the sort of thing a modern forger would do, not to end up in Reading anyway. You could go for AFD, but arguably it is becoming more not less notable as the story develops. Johnbod (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 27/05[edit]

Draft:Aphrodite of Menophantos. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Fremont Rocket[edit]

There's a request about the Fremont Rocket at WT:MILHIST. As this appears to be a sculpture [1] Fremont Rocket, Fremont, Seattle, Washington. It is not a real rocket, but a Fairchild C-119 tail boom modified to resemble a missile. It was rescued from a defunct downtown Seattle surplus store, and is now a symbol of the Fremont neighborhood. -- then I assume this should be categorized as a sculpture? -- (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Help needed[edit]

D&KR 2.jpeg

Does anyone know anything about those two paintings? We are looking for a source so we can safely keep the images on Commons. Any additional information is also very welcome! Thanks for your time! --Hedwig in Washington (TALK) 03:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Hedwig in Washington (TALK) 21:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014[edit]

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles related to LGBT art and artists may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 08/06[edit]

Draft:Dominik Kottulla. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Grove Dictionary/Oxford Art Online[edit]

Has everybody seen the offer of free subs? Still 20 left. People in the UK can get these through their local library. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

A draft at AFC needs specialist assessment[edit]

Please evaluate Draft:Thrill life for acceptability into mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Sionk (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Visual Arts At Wikimania 2014(updated version)[edit]

Project Leaflet WikiProject Medicine back and front v1.png

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Ukiyo-e Featured Article Candidate[edit]

I've put the ukiyo-e article up as a Featured Article Candidate. Please help review it here. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

FPC Vase with Fifteen Sunflowers[edit]

You can now vote on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Vase with Fifteen Sunflowers. The candidacy of this iconic painting by Vincent van Gogh is halfway and needs a few more votes. – Editør (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


The usage of Madonna is up for discussion at Talk:Madonna_(entertainer)#Requested_move_8 where it is requested that the singer's article be moved to "Madonna". -- (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Fork of painting[edit]

I have redirected the recently created Painting (object) to Painting. The creator had tagged it for this project, saving me the effort of tracking down its exact name. I will notify the creator and mention that I have posted here; if there is disagreement with my action, this is presumably the best place to discuss it. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yngvadottir, I understand your action and at first I wondered whether "a fork" as you call it was necessary, and I have decided it is. The reason is because on Wikidata we have properties to classify things, and while it is fine to be able to link on the English Wikipedia to painting whether you mean it as a verb or as an object, this does not work in other languages. Before you redirected, you could have seen how many languages do make this distinction. Before you say that this is the English Wikipedia and you don't care a whit for other projects, please be aware that classification of paintings is about to happen in a big way when Commons is linked to Wikidata. The state of the stub as I made it does no harm and can act as an anchor page to pin these semantic problems. As I started to make in the article, the distinction of what is considered a painting by heritage agencies (such as museums) is also necessary. Of course, I was also aware that part of the painting article also deals with the concept of a physical painting, and certain parts of it should probably be "forked out" as well, such as painting media. Jane (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The project should discuss this; I'm quite prepared to be reverted :-) I wanted to get to it before a lot of effort had been put into the new article. However, I have to say I don't find the argument that "Wikiemedia is going to do something so we need to change what we do" very compelling. Possibly I don't understand it in the brief form you put it. In any event, I'm hoping project members will talk about it and reach consensus, particularly since it will indeed require appreciable changes at painting if it's restored. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
That's fine, I am in no hurry so there is plenty of time to discuss it (the Commons - Wikidata will go through with or without this). To be clear, I do not propose doing this for *all* other arts, but I would suggest it for very large categories on Commons, such as Engraving vs Engraving (object) and Sculpture vs Sculpture (object). Jane (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I certainly agree with the merge. We already have the distinction in the WP and Commons categories between "painting" and "paintings", "sculpture" and "sculptures", also for engraving/s. I can't see why that doesn't cover it. If anything else is needed the route should be to fork "Painting (technique)" rather than "Painting (object)". God knows what madness is brewing over at Commons and Wikidata. One thing I'm pretty confident about is that it will entirely ignore the vast amount of work the museums world has been putting into structured vocabularies for the last many years. "Engraving" is an especially treacherous term - most things on Commons called engravings in fact aren't, they are etchings or other things. Please note that neither of the two senses of painting (a: "a painting" and b: "the art of painting") is a verb at all. This is simply to misunderstand the words. Johnbod (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you willing to help implement the AAT? Wikidata is currently quite far along in implementing the BNCF Thesaurus. Most of the world's top museums are taking a look at Wikidata so maybe you should too. The paintings in the collection of the Rijkmuseum have items using basic information such as that used in the Commons "artwork" template. Many of them already have a "depicts" property (d:Property:P180) that points to the item connected to the biography of the portrayed person (if it's a portrait), location (if it's a landscape), or AAT term (such as biblical or mythological subjects). There are 125 language versions of Wikipedia with a page for the "art of painting", including the English painting page. There are however only 24 language versions of Wikipedia with a page for "a painting", and English is currently not one of them. I believe it should be (and eventually will be). For general information on how WikiData classifies paintings, see the item for the Mona Lisa d:Q12418. I agree that the various painting media should have their own pages, but in general I find the painting article too long and rambling. It should be split into more discrete and manageable chunks, preferably along the lines of the AAT or other thesaurus of your choice. Same thing for printmaking and engraving - note that Wikipedia's tendency to stuff multiple concepts into one huge article (this is across most languages, not just English) causes confusion on Wikidata such that "wood engraving" d:Q1259197 has become a subclass of something that's not even in English. Someone has already made a brave start to classify these here. Oh and the item for "old master print" d:Q3306138 could also use some wiki love. Jane (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm not. I don't have the time at all, as this is obviously a huge task. We were assured at the start that Wikidata would not involve messing about Wikipedia just to suit it, and I believe strongly that this should remain the case. "Stuffing multiple concepts into one huge article" is a fundamental characteristic of an encyclopedia, but in fact we normally have articles on all the individual aspects as well - look at the categories for engraving and printmaking, where in fact we tend to have too many articles (steel engraving, line engraving, engraving etc). I still don't see the problem with painting at all - just use painting for both. The entry for wood engraving is just wrong - as a relief printing technique it is a sub-class of woodcut rather than of engraving (as its article says), but we have articles for all these, as for most printmaking techniques. Someone has just been misled by the name. How does the AAT classify it? Creating little stubs that no one develops just to match what you think the database needs is no solution. I can answer specific question where I know, but that's it. Johnbod (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


"Stuffing multiple concepts into one huge article" is a fundamental characteristic of an encyclopedia

Fully agree, I came here on a whim but have to add that this entire discussion is completely baroque. There is no way Wikipedia will benefit from a large number of stub articles aimed to

act as an anchor page to pin these semantic problems

For WP:Anatomy where I've been focusing considerable effort this would be dooming. If each feature or each anatomical structure needs a separate entry as per implementing Terminologia Anatomica, Histologica, Embryologica, Anthropologica the entire project is smashed into smithereens. There must be some way to link multiple entries to a single article, otherwise Wikidata will be purely disruptive in nature. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Well it was certainly not my intention to tick you all off by my comments on long and carefully constructed container articles. I assure you I won't bother creating such stubs in future, but I believe it will happen over time anyway. I think it's funny that you don't see Wikidata as an interesting project that can help point people towards Wikipedia content, but you see it as a project that could cause disruptive or even damaging Wikipedia edits. I was wondering why so few contributors to this talk page can be found on the Visual Arts project on Wikidata, and that is probably why, so thanks for spelling that out! The current trend towards mobile reading will change large container articles on Wikipedia into smaller chunks eventually, either by changing what we already have, or by accumulating smaller articles moving forward which will be created on mobile by mobile users with mobile readers in mind. This has nothing to do with me or what I am doing in the Wikiverse at all. Jane (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The Painting article is very lengthy and the word itself has a number of meanings. I don't see a problem with splitting the article at some point, to make it more manageable (and useful). But the Painting (object) stub was sourced to dictionary definitions only, so IMO wasn't really suitable yet. When CFCF asks for "some way to link multiple entries to a single article", isn't the answer a disambiguation page? Sionk (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Sionk, now is not the time to deal with this, considering the backlash. FYI: Disambiguation pages exist on Wikidata, but only as Wikipedia concepts. The same goes for list articles and category pages. This is by design. Jane (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Not when you have articles such as Defibrillator and Defibrillation, where the first is a redirect to the second on the English Wikipedia, but the opposite is true on the German Wikipedia. Currently interlanguage links operated via Wikidata make only half the articles visible, while the other half aren't accessible through the side-bar. As for the trend in shorter articles, I'm not convinced. People who read on tablets can see almost full pages, and they are becoming more and more widespread. I'd like to see some real data/reports on the phenomenon in any case. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it may help to view the WMF monthly report card. This shows that last month mobile views were a quarter of all views. Jane (talk)
So 3/4 aren't. We have plenty of one-line articles to keep mobile readers happy. I can't believe many people click on painting looking for three lines on what one is. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. And I am sure everyone is more than willing to scroll all the way to the last three lines of the article as it is today. Jane (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Art Galleries vs Art Museums[edit]

I suspect this must have been discussed before, if so then please direct me to the relevant discussion ! I have been tidying up the subcategories of Category:Art museums by year of establishment and Category:Art galleries by year of establishment and it strikes me that a member of one can normally be placed in the other also ! How does one identify an entity as being an Art museum rather than an Art gallery, or vice-versa, or would you expect most to be in both categories ? My first thought is that if it has a permanent collection then it is a museum, and if not then its a gallery, but I'm sure I've oversimplified, any thoughts ? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The existence of Category:Art museums and galleries by year makes be believe it may be easier to just merge the categories together into Category:Art museums and galleries by year of establishment ! GrahamHardy (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
That is about right. Also galleries (as we and the art trade use the term) are often private and seriously about exhibiting art to sell, but museums are normally public (in the West anyway) and aren't about selling stuff (though they may have the odd commercial exhibition). The categories should not be merged. Of course many museums have "Gallery" in their name, and a few the other way round. Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
It sounds as though the vast majority of the members of one category will also be a mamber of the other, are people happy with that ? If they have a permanent collection then they will be classed as museums and galleries. If they do not have a permanent collection then they will be classed as just galleries. So how about having are museums as a subcategory of art galleries ? or are there circumstances in which an Art museum is not an art gallery ? GrahamHardy (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The overlap should not be large at all. Most museums are not galleries in the sense we are talking about, though there should perhaps be a note explaining the difference. The National Gallery is a museum, not a gallery (the National Gallery of Art too). Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom from Want (painting)/archive1[edit]

Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom from Want (painting)/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)