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)

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)

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)

Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom from Want (painting)/archive1 which is a notable painting and the FAC has no comments after over 3 weeks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
The reviewer has asked me to rearrange Freedom_from_Want_(painting)#Reactions section. In most of my WP:WPVA FAs people like Ceoil have done a lot of my rearranging. I was hoping someone would be interested in cleaning up this one section.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Choice of image[edit]

I wrote up Portrait of Doña Isabel de Requesens y Enriquez de Cardona-Anglesola, but this is not a field in which I am expert. As can be seen from clicking on the Commons category link, we have several versions of this painting to choose from. I used File:Portrait de Jeanne d'Aragon, by Raffaello Sanzio, from C2RMF retouched.jpg, which had been the subject of a rather fraught, and unsuccessful, Featured Picture nomination at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait de Jeanne d'Aragon, by Raffaello Sanzio, from C2RMF retouched.jpg. So far as I can see, only one editor opposed that nomination, but the discussion did not attract many participants. That editor has twice replaced the image in the article with File:Giulio Romano (school of Raphael) - Portrait of Doña Isabel de Requesens - Louvre 612 Joconde 000PE026978.jpg. See Talk:Portrait of Doña Isabel de Requesens y Enriquez de Cardona-Anglesola#Image for a summary of our arguments. Could I ask for some editors with more expertise (and likely better eyesight) than I have to speak to the issue? Perhaps yet a third image would be preferable, such as the unretouched original of the one I had originally used? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Art books for FA writers[edit]

Hi, Wikimedia UK has been talking to the Public Catalogue Foundation here in the UK. They have offered us 12 of their books on Oil Paintings in public ownership in the UK to give to FA writers who would find these useful reference material. If you would like one of these books, details of the 85 titles available are here. You do not need to be a member of Wikimedia UK or even resident in the UK to get one of these books, just choose a book and email me. Preference will be given to FA writers. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 10:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Note the information in the books is essentially that available on the PCF/BBC "Your Paintings" website, sorted by large owner or area into books. But they are very handsome objects. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Titling movements MOS[edit]

Most art movements have been capitalized on Wikipedia almost as if by default, only I would like to see what that default is because I haven't found it, only MOS:DOCTCAPS#Doctrine which to me suggests lower-case is in order. I just want to know what's right! Nonc01 (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Caps are most often used...Modernist (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course, but is it correct, more importantly. Nonc01 (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there is a right or wrong way. The norm in the English speaking art world is definitely to write movements with Caps (rather than like this: impressionism). However, in French they are written in lower case (as many other words). Coldcreation (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
According to MOS:DOCTCAPS#Doctrine there is definitely a right and wrong way, though, and I'm not interested in doing it the populous wrong way based on generalizations unrelated to Wikipedia. There has been similar illuminations this year about uppercase vs. lowercase in sidebars, which ironically enough at the time I disputed a situation with someone where I wanted the caps simply because it looked right to me. But I've come to realize I was wrong...which makes the lowercase, when objectively called for by Wikipedia, look a lot better to me. Nonc01 (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
You need to check here: WP:VAMOS...Modernist (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The section itself raises possibilities and makes no definitive caps style claims. None! A non-updated graveyard of dead links to questionable sources anyway. The bottom of the section neutralizes the top and indicates delegation to dictionary and Wikipedia MOS. You may want to request comment on the busy general board though Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters, but I doubt they refute their own MOS. Nonc01 (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The language at MOS:DOCTCAPS#Doctrine is pretty unambiguous. It seems that—as suggested in this essay—the preference for lower case derives from the premise that "the most reliable sources on how to capitalize, italicize, hyphenate or otherwise style the name of a subject or its subtopics in a general-interest work like an encyclopedia are reliable works on style and grammar in English broadly, not just in the specialty at issue." And it is certainly true that The Chicago Manual of Style, the Oxford English Dictionary, Webster's Unabridged and the like favor lower case for most art movements. For example, The Chicago Manual of Style recommends lower case for art deco, baroque, cubism, fauvism, impressionism, etc. (the very few exceptions include Dadaism/Dada, Gothic, Hudson River school, Pre-Raphaelite, Romanesque; romanticism is "sometimes capitalized to avoid ambiguity"). Encyclopedia Britannica uses upper case for many of these.
WP:VAMOS is more favorable to upper case than MOS:DOCTCAPS, and is part of Wikipedia's MOS. On the other hand, our VA Featured Articles apparently always use lower case (except with broader terms like Renaissance). Ewulp (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually we do have several FA that use caps...Modernist (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
You're right; I posted the above after checking about a dozen articles and finding no support for my own position (I like upper case). Further investigation shows that Las Meninas and The Blind Leading the Blind capitalize Baroque; The Raft of the Medusa capitalizes Romantic, Neoclassical, and Realist; The Battle of Alexander at Issus has Romanticism (also German Expressionism, but it's part of a quote); The Garden of Earthly Delights has Surrealists; Funerary art has Baroque and Neo-Classicism. El Greco has Mannerism, Impressionism, Symbolists, Expressionism but also German expressionist, abstract expressionist, baroque, and Cubism in the lede but cubism in the body of the article. Ukiyo-e uses upper case for Impressionist, Post-Impressionist, and Art Nouveau. So if FAs are our guide to best practices—and they should be—it is clear that flexibility is allowed in this matter, depending on local consensus. Ewulp (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I was going to say - in my experience they almost always use caps, as they should. But when a movement name becomes a general style term, usually later, things may change. Thus there are Realists and realists, Romantics and romantics, Neo-classical and neo-classical, and so on. But eg Cubist, Impressionist & Abstract Expressionist should always be capitalized (or maybe are being mis-used), and generally any -ism should be. The WP:VAMOS section (which I wrote) seems clear and correct, even if the source it originally used is apparently no longer online (as it has been updated to say). If Nonc01 wants it kept simple, then USE CAPS! Thank you. Johnbod (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I would think that lower case/upper case hinges on how the term is being used, which in turn hinges on how a good source is using the term. I think Geometric abstraction, Abstract art, Hard-edge painting, and Lyrical abstraction could be either capitalized or not. I think it depends on how the source is using the term. When the term is being used in an effort to describe artwork in words—then I don't think capitalization is appropriate. It depends on the intentions of the source. If we are using internal links to any of these terms, but we are not intending to imply that the artworks are a part of such a movement, assuming such a movement exists, we should probably make clear by surrounding wording that we are merely describing appearance without implying membership in any such group. These are merely my own opinions. Bus stop (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

New York Watercolor Club / Society[edit]

I would like to start an article about the New York Watercolor Club, but I've seen it's name (unless there's more than one organization here) the following ways:

  • New York Watercolor Club (see SI Collection - name used 1935-1938) - used in 7 WP articles
  • New York Watercolor Society - used in 3 WP articles
  • New York Water Color Club (see SI Collections) - used in 14 WP articles
  • New York Water Color Society - used in 1 WP article

Are there any opinions about 1) whether these are all meant to represent the same organization (for instance, maybe New York Water Color Society is a branch of American Watercolor Society, but I've not been able to find anything to make that connection)? 2) what name should be used for the article?

Thanks!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

My advice is to pick the one you like and create redirects for ALL of the others. This will increase findability for external readers as well as all Wiki(p/m)edians. O and I totally agree that we need that article badly. Jane (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
There may have been more than one organization, or they may have had more than one name. If you don't have sources to clarify this, you won't safely get far with the article, I would suggest. I wouldn't worry too much about what Wikipedia articles say - hit google books. Johnbod (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! It seems that the best title is New York Watercolor Club - it seems that the 2 word Water Color was used in the late 19th century and shifted to one word sometime in the 20th century, born out by info from the two Smithsonian Institution links.
I'm thrown by the use of "Society" - but I like the idea of having redirects to the article, which may spark someone to speak up if there is a distinction. (Previous research of source info showed club is used more than society.)
Thanks, Jane and John, that helps a lot!--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

People who make images "not suck"[edit]


I don't know if you're already familiar with this group or not, but after seeing a Wikipedia ad on my page for The graphics lab, I submitted a request Please help make "Grandma Moses" images "not suck" (phrase from the ad). (The article is currently under GA review.) I looked in commons at the "before" version of some of their work - and they are incredible.

Perhaps some project members have images in articles that they'd like spruced up.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a great project, and its members very helpful. However, I've disabled that animated gif, of text, which breaches our own and international standard guidelines for accessibility. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree in general, but having taken a look at what they get up to I'm concerned that some of their work is creating truely horrible fake colourised versions of b/w originals. These should not be used in articles, or done as part of WP at all. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that input. I don't know if the colourisation was a "special request" or not. They made some changes to Images of two Grandma Moses that I don't think are an issue. Your input is helpful about how far NOT to take it!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

A new article needs a lot of help[edit]

A new by a brand new editor about paper lace artist Hina Aoyama needs a lot of help to get it up to standard, it is written in rather poor English and contains quite a lot of puffery. The subject appears to be genuinely notable so deletion is not really an option. (BTW paper lace is a redlink, but Paper Lace is about a band. I never knew there was more to it than cheap machine made paper doilies or kindergarten "crafts", it's an actual art form!) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The initial clean-up has been done - and papercutting is the correct article about the art form. Interested editors are nevertheless welcome to help improve the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I have redirected paper lace to papercutting even though the latter article covers a much broader topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Heinz Braun[edit]

I just approved it and moved it to the mainspace. I would be delighted if someone could give it a look and assure me that he's notable. Although few good refs, it seemed overwhelmingly likely that he is. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I will add some comments to the article talk page... but one thing is that aside from the attribution to the German article, there is just one source for the article, at that's a biography page from a website in the deceased artist's name. Not the only way, but for me a key way, of determining notability is whether there is much written in books, magazines or newspapers about the subject of the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wanted: Articles for sculptures, monuments and memorials in London[edit]

Following is a list of sculptures, monuments and memorials without Wikipedia articles. User:Ham and I have put this list together and we believe the links below reflect the most appropriate article titles based on naming conventions. I have been creating many articles for London artworks since my recent visit to the city, but I welcome other editors to please assist with the creation of these articles to help improve the encyclopedia.

All help welcome! ----Another Believer (Talk) 23:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Preference for images w/wo frames[edit]


Is there a preference about whether images should/should not include the frame (example: Susanna Paine, third image)?

I didn't see anything in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts, so it's probably not a big deal - my preference would probably be to crop out the frame, but it would be good to get input before I do that.

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Carole, I agree with your preference. If up to me, would always crop away the frame, except in cases where it's obviously an integral part of the work - such as some of the pointillist frames I've seen, or the hand-worked frames of Charles Prendergast, etc. I think frames in a photo often seem more distracting than enhancing. - Xenxax (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, cool - I definitely get your point about the pointillist frames. That makes lots of sense to me, Xenxax. Thanks.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking also - being guided by a "manual of style" of general practice - that most art books very rarely include the frame in a photo of a painting. - Xenxax (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Good point! I made the change and it does look much better.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello Carole. The third Susanna Paine painting looks much better without the frame - a good decision. An excellent and interesting page too ... you did an amazing amount of work on it today, really improved it immensely! - Xenxax (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, it's been a fun one to work on. It's so rare to see a stub - where there is so much great source material - and such a great life story. It's still a work-in-progress -- and probably desperately needs copyediting (which is easier for me when I get all the pieces and parts in) -- but I'm getting there.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)