Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts

Nationality in infoboxes [Nationality deletions]

This editor User:Mootros has engaged in massive deletions of Dutch and Italian artists, claiming they have no nationality. I have reverted his edits to Italian artists and his edits to Dutch artists have been reverted as well. I would appreciate other opinions, thanks...Modernist (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I've tried to engage on his talk page, with little success. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the concept of "Nationality" or "Nation" for people who lived prior to the 18th century. There here no nations or nationalities before 18/ 19th century. For example, there might have been Dutch or Italian people, or a Dutch Republic or a Republic of Florence, which makes it absurd to say Italian or Dutch nationality. People might have had Dutch ethnic origin, with Dutch custom, speaking Dutch, painting Dutch pictures.. but) the idea of a nation or nationality did not exist during the 17th century. Mootros (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This is simply not true, & the only source you have produced for this is the WP article nationality, which is a poor stub. All of this is another argument for removing infoboxes altogether. Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this misses the point; the only evidence people keep citing is some notion of "nationality" used by library classification systems or cataloguing systems. This is a marginal view of the concept of nationality and is used in a misleading way in the info boxes. Info boxes should merely state basic facts not highly controversial concepts open to interpretation. What is to be gained by adding such historical inaccuracy to the info box? Mootros (talk) 06:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Rembrandt - Dutch - born July 15, 1606, Leiden, Netherlands - enc. Britannica [1]. It says Dutch and in the Netherlands...Modernist (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, fully agree! Rembrandt was Dutch. I strongly disagree he held Dutch Nationality. His nationality might have been classified as Dutch in hindsight by a library or museum. This makes it already a controversial issues, as this retro attribution of nationality is limited to one marginal view of the concept and tends to be in contradiction with the general use of the concepts of nationality. What is to be gained by adding such historical inaccuracy to the info box? Mootros (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The argument is WP:OR as it advances an idea not found in the relevant sources, whose lead we follow. The Metropolitan Museum of Art states: "The name and nationality of the maker(s) of the object are given, if known."[2] It then gives as examples, "Attributed to Petrus Christus (Netherlandish, act. by 1444, d. 1475/76)" and "Workshop of Rogier van der Weyden (Netherlandish, 1399/1400–1464) (possibly Hans Memling, act. by 1465, d. 1494)". If you then search the collection for e.g. Andrea del Sarto you will find the nationality stated as "Italian, Florentine".[3] Ty 02:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Forentine a nation? What is the point of introducing a library/ museums classification concept (which participial relies on "historically-inaccurate lumping" techniques) to an info box? What is to be gained? Mootros (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to edit Wikipedia, then you have to apply the core policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. This means we follow the lead of recognised sources. You acknowledge what the sources do ("His nationality might have been classified as Dutch in hindsight by a library or museum"), but you disagree with them. Wikipedia is not the place to innovate your ideas in the face of established usage. If you want to do that, get the libraries and museums to change, and then Wikipedia will follow suit. Ty 13:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No the point is that the use of the term nationality by libraries in this context is rather different and special in contrast to the usual usage throughout this encyclopaedia. This makes it confusing and partially untrue. Rather useless for an infobox. I cannot see anywhere else in the article where it says "Nationality X" If you want to follow the source, the info box should state "library/ museums classification's nationality". What is to be gained by introducing this historical inaccuracy, by stating a "nationality"? Has the infobox become a part of classification system that by its very nature partially relies on such ahistorical lumping? Mootros (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

In the section below you dismiss the argument, "that's the way we do it" (I agree with you); yet here that is exactly the argument you are employing. Your line of thought is contrary to world-wide accepted usage. If we accept your thinking, then there is, e.g. no Italian Renaissance. Ty 01:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all. Italian in the Italian Renaissance is deeply releated to the idea of Italian culture and partially to Italian ethinicity. I have maintained form the very beginning there are surely " Dutch people (of Dutch ethnic origin, with Dutch custom, speaking Dutch, painting Dutch pictures..." All I am saying, lets not use the word nationality in a historical context in some Willy nilly way, especially not in an info box. Mootros (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

According to your post below, "I don't think there was any Italy when Botticelli was born. Italy was founded at the end of the 19th century." This is your reason for saying it is not appropriate to use the term "Italy" for anything prior that date. Yet general usage does employ the term to refer to things that occurred prior to that. It is used in such a way in Italian Renaissance and Italy, e.g. in the latter, "In the sixth century AD the Byzantine Emperor Justinian reconquered Italy from the Ostrogoths." You are even wrong about the foundation of Italy. See History of Italy: "The name Italy (Italia) is an ancient name for the country and people of Southern Italy." Clearly "Italy" is in widespread usage to refer to what happened in the country that is now Italy, prior to its current political state. Ty 02:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

[Moved from below to here] I am not sure it should (just) be discussed here, since you also feel that Cardinal Richelieu was not French [4]; no doubt the French WikiProject would have had something to say about that if I had not reverted you. Just out of interest, from what dates are people allowed, according to you, to have French Dutch or Italian nationality, and why those dates, and what are your sources? Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you talk about nationality in the sense as citizenship, I would say in this specific case of France not before 1804. (see Rogers Brubaker, Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany (Harvard, 1992). If you read any random book on nationality see here http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=naLMTURfICAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=nationality+&ots=22L-SerJKU&sig=lJcJzkOcf3an1ht2VqPyPWk0XB0 you get an idea how the concept of nationality is deeply entwined with the concept of the nation state. These where generally not around before the 18/19th century. However, if you talk about nationality as an ethnic concept, which is completely different from citizenship (see D Miller 1998, link above) it becomes more complicated, one might be able to move further back in time or one might find oneself in current times for example on the Balkan (see Miller 1998, again). If you talk about nationality as a library/ museums classification than it would not matter at all, because its purpose is not historical accuracy but compartmentalising things. These three different key ideas, make it not straight forward at all and leave lots of room for confusion --that's the reason why I am asking what is value of this problematic item in a the box. Mootros (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You are the only one who seems to have a problem. The value is to ensure consistency with established usage of major international sources per WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, which is what a reader would expect. I note you have not commented on the usage mentioned above of Italian Renaissance. Should that be renamed? Ty 01:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have, see above. Where are these sources apart from library catalogues? What is the value of this historical inaccuracy in the infobox? Mootros (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You did that after my comment. Ty 02:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have presented two major international sources, as an example: How is this an issues of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR? Mootros (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Because they don't refer to the issue at question, which is the classification of artists, where the sources are against you. You are making an argument which is WP:SYNTH. Ty 03:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are total twaddle, I'm afraid! France, like most European states, had a well-developed sense of national citizenship well before that, and a number of bureaucratic procedures to administer it. I suggest you read p. 23 of the book On Nationality you link to. Perhaps you should raise this in a wider forum, sionce you are clearly finding no support here. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Twaddle? What bureaucratic procedures prior to the Napoleonic code 1804 do you refer to? Do you mean a cultural sense of belonging? Another secondary reference [[5]] showing even more problem on the issue of nationality (as citizenship) prior 1843/1913 on the case of Germany with its many different legally recognised local nationalities (i.e. Bavaria Prussia). Mootros (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You had French passports, foreigners could apply for French citizenship, all that. I'm beginning to think you know very little about this subject. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What bureaucratic procedures prior to introduction of the Napoleonic code 1804 do you refer to support your assertion of a "well-developed sense of national citizenship" in the 17th century? The only reference to "passport" in this book is on p 45 and that's Johann_Gottlieb_Fichte's comments. Perhaps, you are confusing the exception of the United Kingdom, where British Nationality Act 1772 makes a clear definition that builds on even older customs. Where would this leave good old Botticelli in the Republic of Florence? Mootros (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion really isn't about Botticelli or Rembrandt; it appears that you have a broader aim, and these are merely examples. You're proposing an alteration in a traditionally accepted policy that would impact thousands of articles. That being the case, a consensus, and not just among art editors, becomes all the more important, and the appropriate venue would seem to be elsewhere after all. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History is the appropriate place, unless someone has a better suggestion. JNW (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. I guess History would be a good place and useful to get some further input. But I am under the impression (opinion) that this way of thinking is particularly notable in the (European) visual arts. Mootros (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you JNW, for guiding this discussion. Mootros (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. It's not my intent to guide, but there's a lot of art literature to support the current policy. I suspect the same is true in other fields, and that it's not only art historians who adhere to this model. Yes, in my own collection I've found an art book that uses more specific designations for Italian artists (Umbrian, Florentine, etc), but it also refers to Rembrandt as Dutch. And most of the publications I've come across concur with the museum supported usage that Tyrenius has noted. But I do think you're broaching a wider issue, and even if you found the editors here in agreement with you, you'd be debating this all over again in other provinces. JNW (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I still think it is a rather arbitrary way to go about this, in terms of user boxes and does not add any value so ever. To put it in another way, from what point would you (all commentators) attribute a nationality. Lets take the example of Rumi, why would nobody add here in the info box Iranian, if we consider Historical Persia as related to Iran? There is not logic to this, Botticelli yes but Rumi two hundred years earlier no? Perhaps we should talk this to Biography project? What do people think? Mootros (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Cases vary, so I suggest you take it to the relevant Wikiproject in each case. Nobody normally calls Ancient Romans "Italian" but Chinese people of similar date are called "Chinese". I did suggest this at the start. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I doubt this, that Nationality Chinese is used for this period. Wikiproject biography sounds a good place to talk about the vague and random use of the term "nationality" in info boxes, I guess. Mootros (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

So far nobody has addressed my question: What is the value of this ahistriocal generalisation in the info box that usually gets never repeated in the main text? Mootros (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that the lack of response is related to a general lack of enthusiasm for infoboxes, period. Not an issue to incite passion either way for me, but I think it's been discussed here before, and there were indiscreet murmurs of knocking the art infobox template unconscious late one night and burying it before sunrise. JNW (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The active members of this project tend to dilike infoboxes because they often lead to oversimplification, and they are very often added by others (Wikiproject Biography is that way), but the text will normally (and should) contain the same designation but usually phrased less baldly. Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will be roused from my formatting apathy when there's a call to do away with all 'in pop culture' sections. Ech. JNW (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have already answered the question in my post above of 01:47, 3 July 2010. I will repeat it: "The value is to ensure consistency with established usage of major international sources per WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, which is what a reader would expect." Ty 23:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The nationality item in the info box is never supported with a citation and within the lead these assertions (held nationality X or what attributed nationality Y) for historical figures are really made and even less frequently supported with sound evidence. How is this consistent? Odd and random is what springs to my mind. Mootros (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

People seem to be passionate enough to care about this, evident on the swift action after I have removed the questionable items. Mootros (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What will happen if we move this discussion to the Biography project and a sound consensus will be reached, would contributors here agree with this? Mootros (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Irepeat that individual country wikiprojects are the right places to discuss specific instances, though some overall point may be made at the Biography project. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProjects do not overrule policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. It is quite clear that major sources, whom we are obliged follow, use the nomenclature that is currently employed in infoboxes and that you dispute. Ty 16:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In that case should we not specify the nomenclature in more detail because and introduce a new item called library classification nationality? Mootros (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Morris

Please watchlist. Probably COI reversions to an inadequate version of the article. Removal of tag. Etc. Ty 19:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added a copypaste tag, because large segments of text are identical to wording seen elsewhere--please remove the template if it's determined that the Wiki text was there first. JNW (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted. Due for stubbing possibly. Where has it appeared. Presumably you're aware of the many mirror sites of wiki. Ty 02:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Seen at http://www.theadamandeveprojects.com/artist/sarah-morris. Also some seen here: http://www.artdaily.com/index.asp?int_sec=11&int_new=24483&int_modo=2. Don't know which came first, but these are sites with copyrights. JNW (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I doubt if these publications have copied the wiki content, although it may be the same source that has given the info to them and put it on wikipedia. The bottom line is where it appeared first. If we can't discern that, I think we will have to assume the wiki content is a copyvio. Ty 13:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Place of birth in infoboxes

[the following has been copied from here]

I don't think there was any Italy when Botticelli was born. Italy was founded at the end of the 19th century. Why such inaccuracy? Mootros (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC):See my post after (unindent) in the preceding section. Ty 02:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC):

Where does it say born in Italy. Mootros (talk) 06:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The infobox has a separate entry for where he was born, so that is not at issue. Ty 13:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue is he was not born in Italy, as this box claims. Mootros (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think reverting and counter-reverting within individual articles--Botticelli and Rembrandt-- is the way to resolve this. It ends up being a battle of wills and leads to edit warring, perhaps the least preferable mode. If there is to be a discussion, the place to continue it is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, and bring sources rather than original research. Mootros, I comprehend your point, but you are acting unilaterally, and thus far you don't appear to be interested in consensus. JNW (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC):

Yes you are right it should be discussed at WikiProject Visual arts. To be honest, I am in shock and disbelief that a GA article like Rembrandt is passed with such mistakes (stating born in the Netherlands, not even something "what is nowadays called NL") and when one corrects this, it is instantly reverted. I am not interested in editwarring but currently I am rather shocked. Attitudes by other editors as shown on this page with statements "No that's the way we do it" are not particularly inviting. Mootros (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The National Gallery says, "Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn was born in Leiden in the Netherlands in 1606."[6] Wikipedia policy demands that we follow such major sources of world-wide stature, rather than an editor's opinion, as I have pointed out before to you. Note also from the NG: "the Florentine painter and draughtsman Sandro Botticelli was one of the most esteemed artists in Italy."[7] Ty 00:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The name "Netherlands" predates by centuries the present "Kingdom of the Netherlands", and in any case it is the current state a place is in that is significant. Infoboxes clearly contain summarized information; the place for "then part of " is in the text. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If this is the case, I cannot see any such qualification in the text in the GA article like Rembrandt. Mootros (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And again, where does the source say born or died in Italy? Does it not uses in an non-formal way of talking the word Italy as "that what we nowadays call Italy". Mootros (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. It says he was "one of the most esteemed artists in Italy", which according to you is an incorrect thing to say, but regardless of that it is obviously the widely accepted way of describing things. Ty 03:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it not that he is currently esteemed in Italy, or has been held in esteem in the recent history since the formation of modern Italy, but how can we assert that his was born in Italy. We cannot because at the time there was no Italy. Mootros (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is the source that states he was born in Italy? Mootros (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Italy as a country existed then, if not as a state. But in any case, geographical indications use current political borders, not older ones. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. So Immanuel Kant was born in Russia, than? Where is the source that states Botticelli was born in Italy? Mootros (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Questions about being added

Hi Everyone,

Not sure if this is the best place to ask, but not sure how to get started. I am an amateur street artist in Chicago, and several people who have seen my work on the street have suggested I look into being added to wiki. Is there anyone in the community that I may be able to speak with, show them my work, answer some questions, and see if it's possible to be added to wiki? Any suggestions on how to proceed would be most welcome.

Thanks in advance,

Rob

Rehgn3 (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rob, a reading of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RELIABLE should be helpful. If there have been articles published about you in objective reliable sources that would support your significance, that would be a first step. And then it is always better for someone else with whom you're not associated, per WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, to write it. But do keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't a blog or a registry; articles must meet content WP:GUIDELINES. Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank JWN, this is a big help. So really to be added someone independant needs to create an article? I am a little confused though, is it possible for articles to be written on wikipedia, or do articles need to be from an outside source? Also, is it a breach of wikipedia's best practices to look for someone here that may be interested in reveiwing my work to see if it noteworthy?

Thanks again for the speedy response —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehgn3 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Massive deletions

This editor AuburnPilot is threatening massive across the board deletions at History of painting, opinions would be appreciated here:[8]Modernist (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I am stating simple fact: there is zero justification for an article to have 400+ images (actual count). I believe History of painting needs to have a large number of images removed in order for the article to be of any value. Right now there are far too many image galleries, reducing the value of the article and general usability. Image galleries in such form should be linked to from Wikipedia to Commons. --auburnpilot talk 16:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can figure I think the article needs in depth text, and more informative captions beyond simply identifying the various movements represented...Modernist (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of other considerations, the use of Commons for art articles is not at all satisfactory for a number of reasons, a good one being that we are Wikipedia editors, not Commons editors. Articles should be complete in themselves, not direct readers off elsewhere. Commons is often a mess, to put it bluntly. Images that are important to the understanding of the article should be here. The issue is what is or is not important. Ty 18:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Commons galleries are especially useless. In what way does AuburnPilot think an article on painting has no value because it has too many images? Seems an odd view. Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be when there are 400+ images. At its current size, the article would be very difficult for editors/readers with slow connections to load the page and the current organization needs to be reworked to focus on broad aspects with details provided in sub-articles. Buy it'd be best to keep comments on Talk:History of painting, not here, so I'll be happy to answer any other questions there. --auburnpilot talk 20:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Do these three articles meet notability requirements: Bull Rider and the Cody Nite Rodeo, Blake Paul Neubert, Lily Adamczyk? Bus stop (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that none of them do, based on the references provided so far - a passing mention in a catalogue or show review is not enough. Adamcyk is probably closest at the moment, but she seems the artistic equivalent of a successful local restaurant - a certain amount of local coverage, but nothing outside her region (qv WP:CORP). Certainly I'm not seeing anything that would pass WP:ARTIST. It also bothers me that the article was initiated and largely written by a known problem account, User:Kernelsandirs who has had two articles speedy-deleted and now looks like a WP:SPA. The case for Neubert looks even weaker - and even if he is kept, the Bull Rider should be merged into his article. Le Deluge (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say no also. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Dickinson

Comments are welcome at Talk:Edwin Dickinson regarding a proposal to split some content from the greatly expanded article. Ewulp (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Steve McQueen (artist)

An IP has been edit warring at Steve McQueen (artist) and a few other articles. He essentially wants to remove the term "nouvelle vague" because it's not English. I feel it's an excepted term in English in film studies and thus artists like Steve McQueen. He's already violated 3RR today. I haven't reverted his last edit but he's been warned a few times on his talk page. If others feel English terms should only be used in articles, fine, but it should be discussed. freshacconci talktalk 20:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

He's blocked, [9] as far as I can tell nearly all of his edits are bad ones, not vandalism just really lame editing...Modernist (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Anish Kapoor image

An editor is trying to remove the only image of a characteristic Kapoor work in the article, which has a fair-use rationale. At the same time more discussion in the article of the work Cloud Gate (FA) would be useful. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Something to note is that this is a sculptor who I would strongly assume has work displayed in places where there is a freedom of panorama for sculptures, meaning that a picture purely as an "example of his work" would be replaceable with an image from one of the freer areas. I haven't looked at the issue at hand (I will if you like) but that is a thought to consider. J Milburn (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but we only seem to have good photos of his characteristic mirror-finish works from Germany & the US. Most of his displays in the UK are temporary. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Sky Mirror, Nottingham.JPG. I've replaced the non-free image with this one, which is free (the sculpture is on permanent public display). Ty 19:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It'd be good if you could update the page with notes about who owns the copyright on the sculpture, and about how it is covered by FOP. J Milburn (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There's also some concern about this image. J Milburn (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? Both of these are covered by normal UK FOP. Johnbod (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

They're only covered by FOP if they are on permanent public display.[10] (This doesn't apply to graphic, i.e. 2-D, works, for future reference.) Ty 08:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Maureen Paley restructuring

As of August 9-10, the article is getting a "major restructuring of the entire text to the express wishes of Maureen Paley." Have tried to express that the article is not intended as a comercial vehicle and should follow WP:NPOV and WP:MOS. Referenced material has been removed and Template:Young British Artists--although the gallery is widely accepted as significant in that context. The user Gallery history is an SPA. --Artiquities (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I did some basic copyediting and removed the promotional material. The editor in question has been warned and another editor posted at the COI notice board about the situation. freshacconci talktalk 11:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Note anon IP edit, User:70.19.197.105. [11] Ty 15:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which (Wolfgang Tillmans)

The editor Gallery history has also been editing at Wolfgang Tillmans. His/her edits are actually rather minor there but that article is a mess. I will try tackling it but others may want to have a look as well. freshacconci talktalk 11:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

His/her recent edits may be minor, but see this. That aside, thank you freshacconci! -- Hoary (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"White on White" by Kazimir Malevich

"White on White," by Kazimir Malevich may need flipping — both vertically and horizontally.

Spelling inconsistencies too in both first and second names.

This is the Wiki image used at present at 3 articles.

I'm assuming that this image is correct. Bus stop (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Good catch Bus Stop, definitely needs flipping, I retitled it: Suprematist Composition: White on White...Modernist (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The MoMA link is correct. It's easy to miss as a thumbnail. Poor Kaz. freshacconci talktalk 13:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We need a newer correct version this commons version: File:Kazimir Malevich - 'Suprematist Composition- White on White', oil on canvas, 1918, Museum of Modern Art.jpg is oriented correctly but is way too dark and needs cropping...Modernist (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, can someone pop on over to MoMA with a camera...? freshacconci talktalk 13:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You can upload the picture off MoMA's website, drag it onto your desktop...Modernist (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I just wanted to see some Wikipedian dragged away by over-zealous MoMA guards. freshacconci talktalk 13:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm painting an updated version right now — in 8 colors. Bus stop (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Now you're talkin'...Modernist (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Request Ileana Sonnabend

Hello..I'm new here...Can you guys create a Wiki page for Ileana Sonnabend she was the first wife of Leo Castelli, Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.236.75 (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The current situation is that the page exists as a redirect to Castelli see here. Presuming she was/is WP:N the article on Sonnabend would continue on this page with the redirect removed. Start the article yourself perhaps. Why do you suggest it as a "request"? --Artiquities (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have now started the article by reworking material from the Castelli article --Artiquities (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Great. Just a note here: when material is used from another article, that needs to be recorded in the article where it is placed in the edit summary and/or the talk page to preserve copyright continuity. It is using copyright material, i.e. the copyright of the person(s) who wrote it in the first article. It is used under a free licence, which requires credit. I have done this for Ileana Sonnabend. Ty 21:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks, yes I should of thought of that.--Artiquities (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Good start so far - a lot of material can be added about her gallery in Paris; and her gallery in NYC as well as her relationship with Castelli and the NY artworld...Modernist (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Input about Jacob Epstein

Concerning the lede at Jacob Epstein - American or British?...Modernist (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean which variation of English to use? He was born American but was knighted. A knighthood is pretty damn British. I say British spelling for this instance. freshacconci talktalk 03:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, do you mean should we consider him American or British? freshacconci talktalk 03:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Bacon requested move

I have requested that Francis Bacon--the philosopher becomes Francis Bacon (philosopher) in order that Francis Bacon (artist) become more accessible. The discussion is here Talk:Francis Bacon#Requested_move --Artiquities (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There is now a survey at Talk:Francis_Bacon#Survey. Ty 13:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

V. Ganapati Sthapati

It might be helpful if any interested editors here weighed in with their opinion on the article for the Indian sculptor and architect V. Ganapati Sthapati. He is apparently quite notable in India, but published third party sources in English seem hard to find. There is at the moment a slightly aggressive editor who has put a BLP template on the article. I have suggested an AfD to resolve the issue. Other opinions would be much appreciated. Talk page discussion is here. -- 173.52.134.182 (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Leningradartist

Some people will have come across him before; he appears to be the author of a book on "Unknown Socialist Realism. The Leningrad School", and is now adding massive inappropriate blocks of images by modern "socialist realist" artists to several general articles: [12] These all seem to be from his book, and on his website, & I suspect they are for sale, although the website seems coy about this. They were all added to Commons by him under a OTRS licence: "I, Leningradartist, hereby publish this image under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license. I hereby claim that I am duly authorized to do so by virtue of the contract with the author of this image in accordance with Russian legislation." Hmmm. I have reverted some edits but not looked at them all. Also posting to COI noticeboard. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment here as well:[13]...Modernist (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Edits may cross the thin line between the contributions of an expert and conflict of interest. Yes, contributor appears to be loading articles with these images. JNW (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Guy Cobb‎

Long and largely unsourced article about a visual artist. I've tagged this for numerous concerns, most prominently that it's written by someone who apparently conducted a private interview with the subject and has included everything that ever happened to him. Anyone who wishes to have a look and perform the necessary surgery deserves a barnstar for meritorious service. JNW (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's a deal. Do it, and I'll give you a barnstar! Ty 01:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The only section that has valid cites is "Down in The Valley of Rural Violence and The Thorn Paintings', that from a local paper. Would you suggest deleting everything else, including the images, just leaving the intro, one section about his work, and the refs? JNW (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest:

1. Decide if he's notable. If not, then AfD. He seems on a quick glance to be notable, but you may have a better idea.
2. Remove all material that is not appropriate, regardless of referencing.
3. Rewrite appropriate material not appropriately written.
4. Ask the creator to provide inline citations (presumably using sources already stated in the References section).
5. Monitor accurate use of sources, using {{request quotation}} and other templates at Template:Citation needed.
6. If material is not substantiated after a reasonable opportunity has been given to do so, then it would be an OK procedure to begin deleting it.
7. Throughout, every assistance should be given to the (new) editor to apply Wiki policy: they have expressed a willingness to listen.
8. A fair but firm stance.
9. If there's an impasse, involve others. See WP:DR.
10. Images: deal with as you see appropriate per normal editing judgement. Maybe a gallery could accomodate some. If they're not properly licensed, point the editor in the right direction, and, if that fails, put the images up for deletion.
11. See you in a few weeks time, when you've finished tearing your beard out.
12. Good luck.

Ty 01:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)