Jump to content

Talk:Charles Marion Russell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

High School

[edit]

On the west side of the Missouri River. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.44.76 (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

There are many CM Russell works out there that cannot be shared. Why? Because those who control what is real and not real, will only authenticate or recognize that which is authentic if it does not decrease thier collection valuation. Russel is a force of nature, a talent in line with Remington, and brilliant in his use of color, hidden image, humor, and experience. I hope that others will realize that much will be lost, that should not be, if this continues. This is, of course, just my opinion, but I base it on the above link, and the story it contains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etraveler13 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi Montanabw, per your reversion of an image gallery here [2], and guidelines at WP:IG, it's never been my impression that such galleries are flatly discouraged, especially when dealing with articles on the visual arts. If the inclusion of more images of an artist's work than can be comfortably accommodated in the body of the article add something of value, then they're constructive. Perhaps it would be an act of good faith to allow the editor who had just recently added the gallery to supplement it with captions, or otherwise explain the images' import, rather than summarily deleting the pictures. Thanks and cheers, JNW (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, galleries are routinely discouraged. Per WP:IG Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons." Commons is the scrapbook. If the article is too image-heavy, then images need to be removed. Montanabw(talk) 21:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:IG:

Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject.

I'm not advocating the indiscriminate addition of such galleries, but I'm unaware that they're routinely discouraged, especially when they're relevant to biographies of major artists and art movements. WP:IG states Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged, which is not the case here. Similarly, I'm not clear as to what constitutes 'image heavy', nor when images need to be removed. JNW (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can beat the guideline to a pulp: "Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of images." So let's try Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Consideration_of_image_download_size:"Rather than including an image gallery on an article, which could add significantly to the download size, consider creating a gallery/category on the Wikimedia Commons instead." Allowed versus ideal is my criterion, but I'm not going to argue about this here. Take it to article talk, please. The problem with a Russell gallery is that it would grow to dozens, see how many images are in Commons already. What's representative? BIG time argument. There are about 10 images that show up everywhere as iconic or of high significance due to size or location, and experts fight over the rest. Montanabw(talk) 21:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are several years out of touch Montanabw; obviously arts articles always benefit from galleries as there is never enough room for all relevant images at a reasonable size. They are normal in recent artist bio FAs, and they rarely inflate too much. Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See above, edit conflict. Show me an FA, then. And cut the "several years out of touch" comment, please, that's obnoxious. Montanabw(talk) 21:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Caspar David Friedrich, Robert Peake the elder, Hoxne Hoard, The Disasters of War, Holy Thorn Reliquary and plenty of others. Also see WP:VAMOS. Johnbod (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That the gallery would grow to dozens is a projection--I think the editor added three and moved two others from the body of the article. A single row is not excessive, nor does it constitute 'image heavy'. The better issue is whether gallery images are indiscriminate or represent iconic works, which doesn't have to entail major argument, and may be the salient point here. Unless the images are clearly of sub-standard quality or represent works that are by consensus minor, engaging the editor in discussion is probably preferable to rapid deletion of images. JNW (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And they were just a mishmash of images. What's happening is some user is uploading a bunch of Russells to Commons and them put them all here too. Precisely my concern. Montanabw(talk) 21:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect what's needed is mention of individual paintings within the text, or captions beneath them which would establish their significance. For the record, I've discouraged or reverted galleries which struck me as ponderous and indiscriminate, and perhaps these images merit further attention. There's nothing wrong with taking the time to suss that out....provided one isn't leaving the keyboard just now, as am I. But let's not presume the user is going to transfer an unwarranted number of images here, until they actually do so. JNW (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are some 90 images on Commons, and, with the gallery, 9 in the article, but in any case you seem to be objecting to a gallery on principle. The current selection may not be be optimal - there is no sculpture for example, but removing the gallery completely is unlikely to help here. Johnbod (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK, I'll try it your way then. See if it's a bit better. I don't have time to do a lot of the research and sourcing this article badly needs, but with any luck, this will be an improvement over the "brown and yellow" series of only cowboys and Indians. Montanabw(talk) 23:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Smiling) See, now that's too many images. Agreed that cites are sorely needed, but my compliments to you for constructing a gallery of images with relevant text. If memory serves I wandered to this article a long time ago and weeded out unsourced or copyright violation text (yep, February 2, 2010). Thanks for engaging in discussion, and spending time on the article. You clearly have substantial knowledge about him, and the biography profits from your contribution. Cheers, JNW (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, too damn many. I added some text, but not enough for the images in there now. I think the ones outside the galleries have captions or text explaining why they are significant. The ones IN the galleries are representative of various themes, with the most important captioned with detail. I'll let someone else sort it all out. Montanabw(talk) 00:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For what its worth - articles in the visual arts are greatly enhanced by imagery and the image galleries are an efficient means by which we can communicate the work. As a rule we tend to use the images no more than four deep on a line so as to accommodate small and handheld computers more comfortably. We try not to use any fair use images in galleries in favor of imagery in the public domain. So far your images look very fine - good job...Modernist (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement

[edit]

@Hafspajen:, How shall we format the titles of the paintings and sculptures? They are inconsistent, some are in "quotes" some are in italics and some have no formatting at all? I'm willing to make them all consistent if we can agree on which format to use. Montanabw(talk) 21:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OH, now I see what you mean. Some are like this: "Title" and some are like this... Title. Don't know what's correct. Hafspajen (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the MOS and looks like this suggests italics are best. I'll make the fix (and you can revert anything I mess up.) Montanabw(talk) 00:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charles Marion Russell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charles Marion Russell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Marion Russell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charles Marion Russell – Smoke of a .45 – Google Art Project.jpg to appear as POTD soon

[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Charles Marion Russell – Smoke of a .45 – Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 6, 2020. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2020-04-06. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Marion Russell
Charles Marion Russell (1864–1926) was an artist of the Old American West who created more than two thousand paintings of cowboys, Indians, and landscapes set in the western United States and in Alberta, Canada. He became an advocate for Native Americans in the West, for instance supporting the bid by landless Chippewa to have a reservation established for them in Montana.

This picture is a 1908 oil-on-canvas painting by Russell, entitled Smoke of a .45, depicting an action-packed scene in a dry, dusty landscape. The work is now in the collection of the Amon Carter Museum of American Art in Fort Worth, Texas.Painting credit: Charles Marion Russell

Archive – More featured pictures...

.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Marion_Russell&oldid=1210152906"