Talk:History of painting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Old stuff[edit]

Should contain mention of anti-painting tendencies such as Miro's "murder of painting" and the advent of conceptual art. --Daniel C. Boyer

Since when has the European Renaissance been considered part of the 20th century?

Since when has the European Renaissance been considered part of the 20th century? - T. Humiston

There's gotta be some way to merge this, Art movement, Art styles, periods and movements, and Art history - it seems like things are getting repeated over and over... --STLEric 21:15, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Painting history is not the same as art history. If our articles give that appearance, it is simply bias on our part. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-22 06:22

Where's the 21st Century?[edit]

Are we incapable of contextualizing painting in the 21st century in history? Or are there no emerging "movements" to add? Vanessa kelly 19:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

New category added: Contemporary painting in the 21st Century. Modernist 14:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Bouguereau ? 11:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Keith Brown

I'm not an art history expert, but shouldn't the 21st century section be underneath the "Western Art" section - the sole picture shown right now is from a Chinese artist. In fact, perhaps the modern art section should altogether be in its own category, as there are probably major non-Western artists in the 20th century, and the categories for other cultures pretty much only talk about historic art. Though you could argue that even non-Western artists used "Western" influences, i.e. the movement towards abstract art could be considered to be the result of Western-style freedoms. Hypertall (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Missing centuries[edit]

The period 1525-1725 is hardly covered. Does that mean European art was going through a dull phase then? Anwar 20:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Painting[edit]

Quote: "The depiction of humans, animals or any another figurative subjects is forbidden within Islam to prevent believers from idolatry so there is no religiously motivated painting (or sculpture) tradition within Muslim culture."

Not to be too incredibly mean or anything, but this person is very ignorant on the subject and uses a tone as if in a soapbox to discredit Islamic art. Not only did Muslims depict the facial features of the Prophet Muhammad up until the 16th century, but every single piece of artwork in the Islamic painting section completely contradicts this statement and following statements in that part of the article. Can someone (who is somewhat knowledgeable in Islamic art) please rewrite this entire section, as the entire thing is nothing but non-sensical opinionated blabbering that doesn't belong in wikipedia. Thank you.--PericlesofAthens 15:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me to return images of Islamic paintings to the deleted gallery today. I was surprised by the deletions with no warning. As to the text, I agree an expert on Islamic painting which is clearly filled with both imagery and meaning would be useful. Modernist 22:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem, it was in sore need of images. It is a shame that I am no expert on Islamic art, but I'm sure some valuable tid bits of info can be learned from the wiki article on Islamic art.--PericlesofAthens 05:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

South Asian Painting[edit]

The gallery of art from India desperately needed some substantial pieces of art, so I have expanded it with classical works of art from India to replace some of the cheesy contemporary stuff that looked like they were painted within the last ten years.--PericlesofAthens 10:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, really cheesy, looks better now. I'm beginning to wonder about African art, I'd like someone to step up to the plate, there Modernist 15:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
There is just very little sub-Saharan painting surviving except the very old and the very new. Johnbod 16:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Veltzer Doron[edit]

I removed the above from the article because there are no google hits for this artist. If you think this should be included in the history of painting please write an article about Veltzer Doron, thanks Modernist 15:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

East Asian Painting[edit]

In my opinion, having the gallery images in chronological order makes sense and looks good. Modernist 17:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

article is too complex[edit]

IMO this article is hopelessly overbloated. Why is Chinese painting explained far and wide if a separate article about it exists already? Give a short explanation and if anyone wants to read on just go that specific article. Also all the images in the galleries make surfing the article unwieldy, a link to the respective Wikimedia Commons category should suffice. I don't think you need to show as many images as possible, if anyone wants to see more they should go to the Commons. Gryffindor 23:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is Chinese painting explained far and wide if a separate article about it exists already?

??? Explained far and wide? I fail to see the comparison between it and the explanation for Western painting, which is 6 times larger than Chinese painting. The textual section of South Asian painting is equally as large as Chinese painting; why should either one be shorter than the other?--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


This page says that the Chauvet Cave paintings show "...lions, buffalo, mammoth or humans often hunting" whereas the Chauvet page says that, "Typical of most cave art, there are no paintings of complete human figures, although there is one possible partial "Venus" figure that may represent the legs and genitals of a woman."

No matter what this partial Venus figure is doing, she is not hunting, so these two pages say different things about the same paintings. Can someone please sort this out. (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

More on images[edit]

It is almost never acceptable to use non-free images in galleries because of WP:NFCC#8 (which is a policy, not just a guideline). Each non-free image which is truly useful in the article needs to be mentioned in the text (not just the image's caption) along with some allegation of how the image is important to the topic of Western pointing, and that statement (e.g. "Dali's Crucifiction helped usher in the surrealist movement") needs to be sourced so that it's not original research. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that " Each non-free image which is truly useful in the article needs to be mentioned in the text (not just the image's caption)" is new to me. I understand that just giving a title and artist name in a caption does not amount to discussion, but see no reason why a longer caption commenting on the work should not do so. Please clarify what you are saying, and produce policy references if you are indeed saying this. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
As you probably realize these images are important to these articles especially 20th century visual art articles. I will very carefully go over the text and reference and specify and coordinate the text to those images over the next few days. Modernist (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Great, thanks! – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem, although it's gonna take me a few days. Modernist (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Logic and common sense tells us that these images illustrate style, tendency etc. For instance the Robert Mangold painting is used as an example of a style - Minimal art whose characteristics are discussed and placed in historical context. Is it that particular Mangold that is specifically discussed no - as in WP:UCS we are using examples of style. Franz Kline and Willem de Kooning demonstrate particular tendencies in Abstract Expressionism, etc. I will add text and reference only where logic and possibility make it viable. Modernist (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of experienced and conscientious arts editors in Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts, willing to attend to these issues. It would be helpful, before images are deleted, to raise problems first of all on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, so the particular case(s) can gain attention and evaluation. The Foundation has specifically mentioned contemporary art as a genre where non-free images will often have to be retained. Regarding WP:NFCC#8:

Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

Visual art is the parmount place where this applies. The understanding is in the seeing, and no amount of words can substitute for that. Template:Non-free 2D art states that the use of non-free images for critical commentary on

  • the work in question,
  • the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or
  • the school to which the artist belongs

are all legitimate. The description of changing modes and ideas in art is critical commentary, whose meaning can only be properly comprehended by literally seeing it. Tyrenius (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Question for you[edit]

at Talk:Western painting please reply there: Your claim that " Each non-free image which is truly useful in the article needs to be mentioned in the text (not just the image's caption)" is new to me. I understand that just giving a title and artist name in a caption does not amount to discussion, but see no reason why a longer caption commenting on the work should not do so. Please clarify what you are saying, and produce policy references if you are indeed saying this. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Thanks Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

FUR and PD[edit]

Removed the tag, I've checked all the images and they seem ok to me. Modernist (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


The Scream.jpg

can we add Edvard Munch, The scream —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap[edit]

I just realized something: where's all the Aztec, Maya, Incan, Mixtec, Toltec, Huari, and other pre-Columbian American painted artwork? I've seen the murals for myself, these cultures had a strong tradition in painting. Am I really the first one to point this out?--Pericles of AthensTalk 07:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Americas[edit]

Good thought, maybe the section should be called The Americas and encompass Native Americans - in Canada, the USA and in Mexico, Central America, and South America. I started the section - it's called Painting in the Americas - Modernist (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Swedish "petroglyph"[edit]

Isn't it a pictograph instead of a petroglyph? --Taraborn (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect they are petroglyphs that have been painted - so as to become more visible. The article caption reads: The glyphs are painted to make them more visible. It is unknown whether they were painted originally. Composite image. Nordic Bronze Age. The article is here: [1]...Modernist (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed your request for a fact check - because you can't document what no one knows for's all basic conjecture. If you are truly interested read this article [2] and then try the related referenced texts and related articles...Modernist (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


I am prepared to restore the article because I think its a good article being displaced and damaged for the wrong reasons, although in good faith. I will try to integrate some imagery out of the galleries and into the text, and I'll cut some of the galleries back, and/or thin them down..I'll do my best. Everything remains, but on hold until agreement is reached. The overall idea is to reintegrate imagery into the text, and a few smaller galleries if required. For now the images are all available but on hold. Modernist (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've argued for the gallery format[3], but best to see how the discussion goes there first. Let's put the case for the optimum layout. Of course, if you think images in text is best, I won't oppose, because I haven't been editing the article anyway. Ty 05:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Pioneer sections[edit]

Has a smaller gallery, inline imagery and text. I think it looks too busy, pictures on the edges, I prefer the galleries..I can write more text and try a few other in the center, if it seems appropriate. I'll need some galleries though. I am going to try a different version. Modernist (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The version I've just seen obstructs understanding for the sake of enforcing some kind of imaginary obligatory policy. Ridiculous. Very hard to follow and make sense of. Ty 12:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree Ty, thats the problem...sort of ironic, given this is all radical art that broke all the rules, risking ridicule and scorn we are trying to fit into a small peg...The saying goes - if it ain't broke - don't fix it. Maybe we should just change the rule pertaining to art history..Modernist (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Dada Surrealism section has a gallery of four and inline images, I think it's ok. Modernist (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's OK. It's just not as good for the reader to get a broad idea of historical development and grouping. Ty 12:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I gotta go, when I come back I'll try another section..although I think it ain't broke and here I go fixing it...Modernist (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Reworked the section - it needs more text, but It's not that bad....I can add more text. I think the imagery can work. The next sections will be harder though, I'll keep going.Modernist (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Three sections left in 20th century...seems to be going well. I might stop for awhile, will need copyediting..Modernist (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Restoration of the 20th century, etc[edit]

I prefer the original version with larger galleries. This version now contains 3 double galleries of 8 and 14 galleries of 4, the 21st century still needs to be expanded as of now. I also might make Surrealism and Dada into a gallery of 8. The original version of the 20th century had larger galleries but still was both smaller and shorter. Both Johnbod and Tyrenius have made terrific observations to me. I need to learn tables and write long captions..Modernist (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Duchamp LargeGlass.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Duchamp LargeGlass.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use Rationale added, all current 12 problems fixed. This low resolution image is used in History of painting, an article about work the artist and others do, the context his work has, and he is credited as doing a piece of artistic work.Modernist (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Undue Prominence Hudson River School[edit]

There is a link under the c19 heading that I have tryed to remove, but had my edit reverted. Please see the discussion on western painting for a consensus that supports my edit.Research Method (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Undue Prominence for US Painting[edit]

I detect a bias towards US painting in this article. I think this may reflect the fact that this is the English Language Version of wikipedia.Research Method (talk) 06:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Statements such as "The spell of Impressionism was felt throughout the world, and nowhere more profoundly than in the United States, where it became integral to the painting of American Impressionists " are not suitable for an encylopedia, particularly since french impressionism is not mentionedResearch Method (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Despite the many contributions of Wikipedians writing in English as a non-native language, the English Wikipedia is dominated by native English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries. These Anglophone countries tend to be industrialized, thereby accentuating the encyclopedia's bias to contributions from First World countries. Countries and regions where either English is an official language (e.g. Hong Kong, India, Pakistan and other former colonies of the British Empire) and other countries where English-language schooling is common (e.g. Germany, the Netherlands, and some other European countries) participate more than countries without broad teaching of English; hence the latter remain under-representedResearch Method (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an acknowledged systemic bias of the project. See WP:BIAS. Ty 13:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

African Painting[edit]

"Contemporary African artists follow western art movements and their paintings have little difference from occidental art works." How do they differ from Americans? Research Method (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


Do any of the primary editors of this article have an idea of how many of the images within it are non-free images? لennavecia 20:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't know. But, the sheer number of images is incredible. I fail to see how it is so necessary to have in excess of 400 images on a single article. This is ridiculous! --Hammersoft (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Image overhaul[edit]

This article is undergoing a major change concerning imagery per [4]...Modernist (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with non-free images[edit]

For the record: on 8 May 2010, there were 72 non-free images in this article.[5] The figure below shows the result of work already done to reduce the number. Ty 02:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As of 29 May 2010, this article has 51 non-free images, the second highest number in wikipedia.[6] This is excessive per WP:NFC. I propose a rationale for addressing this.


1. Relevance

In Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature: "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic."

2. Variety

According to the guideline Wikipedia:Images#Image_choice_and_placement: "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. Three uniformed portraits would be redundant for a biography of a famous general. A map of a battle and a picture of its aftermath would provide more information to readers."

3. Proportionality

A rule of thumb is to "Try not to overwhelm the text with 'too many' pictures—one image or infographic every 250 words is a good guideline."[7] This ratio is advocated by others also.[8][9][10]

4. Informative

If an aspect of the article is valid in words, then it is also valid in a picture, which is simply another way of communicating information, including that which cannot be easily put in words. Far from being "superflous", images help the reader a great deal to engage with the subject and gain entry into the facets of it, especially when a reader may not be familiar with what something looks like. This is particularly important with artworks.

5. FA consideration

Note also: "Images aren't a requirement for any Featured Article, but asking for specific parts of articles which would benefit from having an image to be more illustrated is a valid objection."[11]

6. Foundation licensing policy

This is stated in an excerpt from Kat Walsh's post on Foundation mailing list:

Some Wikimedia projects use media that is not free at all, under a doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing". There are some works,

primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Because the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions without having license or permission. Some works that are under licenses we do not accept (such as non-derivative) may meet these conditions. Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace

with free media that would serve the same educational purpose.


The problematic time period is History_of_painting#20th_century_Modern_and_Contemporary where most images are in copyright. This is divided by discrete movements. I will take Abstract Expressionism as an example. It has 1114 words. Per 3. above, we might think in terms of 4 images, but the actual use should be dictated by need, not just numerically.

The basic need in an overview article of this nature is to differentiate one movement/period (or whatever the divisions are) from another, so the question to be asked is what are the essential characteristics of Abstract Expressionism and what are the minimal number of images to represent them? I suggest three modes: 1) Drip painting (Pollock) 2) color field painting (Newman) 3) expressive figuration (De Kooning), possibly 4) expressive abstraction (one of Kline/Still/Motherwell).

This reduces the necessary images to 3 or 4, as opposed to the current 8. I don't think the latter can be defended (in terms of wikipedia requirements), but the former can be.

If this principle is applied throughout (including the free images), then not only will it fulfill WP:NFC but also be more concise and thereby more easily apprehended by the reader.

Ty 02:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


Appreciate the input, I will continue to prune the imagery...Modernist (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately I have found certain images like the Newman to be in pd which really helps, I have been checking every image and every artist for pd imagery...Modernist (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Currently - (72) 51 to 44; and (66) 51 to 39; (39) 39 to 31...Modernist (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
What would really help are a few uploads. - I'd like to have public domain images of: Joan Miro, Rene Magritte, Max Beckmann, Balthus, Otto Dix, Yves Tanguy, Frida Kahlo, Arshile Gorky, late Wassily Kandinsky, Milton Avery, and any others for starters...Modernist (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
If an image was published (not just painted or exhibited) before 1923 then it would be PD in the US. Publication can be in any multiple form (poster, book, postcards, magazine, newspaper) available to the public. It's a question of getting hold of the old publication, then uploading the relevant image and referencing the proof of publication date. There's a Commons tag[12] for life of author + 70 years (i.e. at the moment anyone who died 1939 or before). The en:wiki one is stricter. It seems something like an all black painting by Reinhardt[13] would qualify for {{PD-ineligible}}, but the over-use of monochromatic work would not be representative and would therefore defeat the educational intent of the article. Ty 15:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Reinhardt might work, the Yves Klein is a similar situation...Modernist (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Klein is already tagged PD, as you may have noticed, because there's not enough creative content to justify a copyright claim (!). Ty 15:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I know, the Klein is a color as well; I'd like to include Magritte and Miro with earlier images prior to 1923, I added the 1912 Mondrian for that reason...Modernist (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Everybody has an opinion about art. Maybe we should put a few more monochromatic paintings in the article. Bus stop (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd add the Reinhardt if it is uploaded...Modernist (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Subtract Reinhardt at the risk of misspelling the name. Bus stop (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have referred to this conversation at [[I have referred to the above conversation at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:PicassoGuernica.jpg. Ty 02:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Galleries or images in text[edit]

Normally we would not put non-free images in galleries, but in the text relating to specific images. I think the article is best served in this instance by the use of galleries. The section as a whole discusses a movement. The paintings here are not used specifically to show the individual artist, but to show representative works of the features that characterise a movement. Per {{Non-free 2D art}} this is a legitimate usage:

for critical commentary on
   * the work in question,
   * the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or
   * the school to which the artist belongs

The grouping of the works together helps to present the movement characteristics, and facilitates the comparison of one movement with a similar grouping of work in another section by another movement. To disperse the works in the text would hinder this and be counter-productive for the educational purpose, hence making a weaker claim for fair use. Ty 16:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


The number of images in this article is beyond absurd and must be reduced. There is absolutely no reason for so many galleries; add a link to Wikimedia Commons if a gallery would be useful. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to make a reasoned reduction of images, but I plan to begin randomly reducing the images within this article soon. I simply don't see that a case can be made for the current volume of imagery. --auburnpilot talk 02:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Imagery is particularly important for the visual arts. This survey article requires visual imagery in order to demonstrate the enormous complexity of visual art throughout the world and throughout time, these issues have been long discussed. Unilateral and random deletions without consensus are certainly not called for...Modernist (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Imagery may be important but that doesn't change the fact that there are a few hundred too many images in this article. I intend to remove most galleries, leaving at most three or four images that exist now per section. Wikipedia is not and never has been an image repository and fifty images are not required to illustrate each section. --auburnpilot talk 15:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Unilateral deletions are against consensus...Modernist (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Consensus is not required to make edits. WP:OWN might be a good read for you. --auburnpilot talk 16:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Consensus is required to make controversial edits, which is what you suggest. WP:REMOVAL might be a good read for you. --Jashiin (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I strongly object to "randomly reducing" the images. If any reduction is done, it should be after consensus is reached on what to delete. It's very easy to misrepresent an era such as the Renaissance by reducing the gallery to Leonardo, Raphael and Michelangelo (for example); no deletions should be made by editors "not familiar enough with the subject." --Jashiin (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Unilateral deletions are against consensus. You say that you have no expertise in this field, and because you WP:IDONTLIKEIT you are contemplating massive changes? This is an encyclopedia, and this is an important historical article...Modernist (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed; the problem with this article is too little text, and also too little information in the captions, rather than too many images per se. Some galleries are probably too long, but random removals will not help. Any article on this subject clearly needs to be very heavily illustrated. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll ask for outside opinions. There is zero justification for an article to have 400 images (actual count, not an exageration). Both of you seem to have a very strong misunderstanding of how this project works. Consensus is not required for every change and my note here was a mere courtesy. Had I gone ahead and simply removed the bulk of images, I would have been perfectly within policy and practice. --auburnpilot talk 16:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me? After a combination of eight years and more than 125,000 edits, and more than a dozen FA articles between us I think we know how this project works...Modernist (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I agree that images should be reduced. It would be easier for the reader to assess the individual sections and make comparisons between them. However, the statement, "I'm not familiar enough with the subject to make a reasoned reduction of images, but I plan to begin randomly reducing the images within this article soon" is not helpful. Images, like text, are information. Translate that into an approach to text to see how inappropriate it is: ""I'm not familiar enough with the subject to make a reasoned reduction of text, but I plan to begin randomly reducing the text within this article soon." This is one of the most important visual arts articles. It is, at the moment, cumbersome, but nevertheless informative. It requires a careful, considered approach. Random deletions would end up with a worse result than the current state. WP:NOTREPOSITORY certainly doesn't apply. Please read #4: there is obviously an "encyclopedic context". A more collegiate approach would contribute to a consensual outcome. I might mention that some input above comes from editors of WP:FA standard in the visual arts. Ty 17:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
In the future, I suppose I'll just keep my areas of expertise to myself since admitting a lack of knowledge will be held against me. I posted on the talk page, rather than simply removing the images, because I hoped the regular editors of this page would assist in the matter. This article is absurdly over filled with images. Apologies if my tone was misread, but the number of images in this article must be reduced. --auburnpilot talk 17:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
You claim to have no knowledge of the field but contemplate unilateral changes to an important article...Modernist (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Please try to stop focusing on your apparent issues with me, and instead focus on the issues with the article. Thanks, --auburnpilot talk 17:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
For the record, it was you who started taking this personally, claiming your opponents did not understand how Wikipedia works. --Jashiin (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

We were here two years ago , and the same problem's come up, though this is less about non-free content and more just on the page. The page alone is too big (it's 182k, WP:SIZE recommends less than 100k) and now you're overloading it with images; this page is now inaccessible for people on low-bandwidth devices. As each major period has its own article were a single large gallery can be used, there is no rationale to incorporate massive galleries as used here. A few images per section are completely reasonable. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wait, check that, we have galleries of non-free. That's not allowed at all. I know you're trying to follow the format of most art history books, but WP is not paper - we have restrictions on distribution on what we can provide. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
As you know we have been having these conversations for years already. The issue is a complex one. This article covers a massive subject, it is a survey of the history of painting throughout the world and from the cave paintings to the modern era to the contemporary world. It is covering Eastern art history, Western art history, African culture, the Early Americas and the article requires the imagery. To subdivide is a question that we have been discussing by the way...Modernist (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
It is a massive article that already has several subarticles to support it where more detail on each era or region can be discussion and more numerous examples can be provided. As for the "history" of painting, that can be described in words with the useful additions of limited images to help visualize some aspects. The approach to this article needs dire correction per summary style and size issues to fit the pattern we use through the rest of WP.
As a suggestion: You first have way too much focus on the 20th century materials. There may be a lot more about the 20th century and certainly the amount of info give is appropriate for the articles on 20th century painting and movements, but its undue here. Second, all the "Painting in Americas", etc. probably can be spun out to a summary article on painting from different regions/cultures, as likely each will have a unique history to be explored as well. --MASEM (t) 17:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely with Masem, here. The topic would be best represented through a main article (History of painting) that summarizes specific time periods that are addressed in much greater detail in sub-articles. As this framework already exists for the most part, the main focus will be on reorganizing the main article while moving text/images to the sub-articles as necessary. --auburnpilot talk 17:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The use of non-free images was what brought me to this article to begin with. Following a link from File:Frida Kahlo (self portrait).jpg, I was astounded by both the use of non-free images and the sheer volume of images. --auburnpilot talk 17:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
As someone who has an impartial interest in this article, I have to agree with the arguments of Modernist. Sadads (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Masem, I hear you - we have been discussing those specific changes. To that effect concerning the 20th century - we have put together a new article and further in dealing with the use of non-free imagery there have been massive reductions over the past few months and those reductions will continue as often as possible, provided we can find a pd substitute. As for the Americas there are some ancilary articles, but those need figuring and a lot of work, I will focus there...Modernist (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) If anyone wishes to participate in editing this article (informed edits would be most welcome), please read the existing material on the talk page first, so it doesn't have to be repeated. Work has been taking place already along some of the lines suggested above (admittedly slowly, due to the dearth of visual arts editors). Already put forward previously have been the points concerning the number of images and the disproportionate section on 20th century art. I suggest per this that something in the region of 4 images per section would be appropriate (but judiciously selected): see rationale at #Dealing with non-free images. Also, please note per Template:Non-free 2D art that art images can have a different status to most, in as much as it is valid free use to illustrate critical commentary, not necessarily on the specific image per se, but for commentary on:

  • the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or
  • the school to which the artist belongs

The case is also made above on this page that a rare exception to non-free images in galleries may increase the educational value and hence fair use claim in these circumstances. Ty 18:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A way forward[edit]

Either someone who knows the subject can trim a particular section; this can then be open to discussion, or sections can be dealt with one by one, with a section below dedicated to each section in the article. I'll open one as a trial. We should be going for the archetypal images. Ty 18:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

19th century[edit]

History of painting#19th century: Neo-classicism, History painting, Romanticism, Impressionism, Post Impressionism, Symbolism

I suggest one painting to represent each genre. Any suggestions? Ty 18:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


David. Death of Socrates. Ty 18:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

History painting

Monet. Impression Sunrise. Ty 18:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Post Impressionism

Van Gogh. Sunflowers. Ty 18:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


Multiple artists[edit]

With all due respect I support the use of multiple artists to demonstrate most subjects. For instance the wide disparity among the major Post Impressionists - Cezanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin, Seurat, Lautrec in my opinion necessitates demonstrating visually the differences between them and why they constitute a separate movement in the late 19th century - and their specific influences on the art that follows is also dependent on visual as well as verbal description. The reduction to one I find problematic..Modernist (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an overview of the whole history of painting, so its purpose is not to show the variety within Post-Impressionism or even particularly why Post-Impressionism constituted a definitive movement, but to show much bigger comparisons, between East and West, and one century and another. We need examples that show these bigger tendencies. Per WP:SUMMARY, there should be sub-articles, and sub-sub-articles (and so on) to go into ever more detailed comparison. What you are suggesting is too detailed for this article. Ty 19:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Modernist. Also, Impression, soleil levant is historically important, but I don't think it represents Monet's mature style and/or Impressionism as such very well. I'd say the Bordighera paintings (the linked one seems to be the better one of the ones available at Commons) are more representative of both, or perhaps something from the 1890s... --Jashiin (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Per my post above, you are taking a far too minute view of this article's purpose, which is a broad overview. It is not concerned with the development of individual artists' works, but with developments over centuries and globally. Ty 19:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Eh, read my post again. I said that the painting isn't representative of Impressionism in general, as well as Monet's mature style. What I mean is that if you take a bunch of paintings by Monet, Sisley, and Renoir, and then compare them with Impression, you'll see that, broadly speaking, the latter is somewhat less colorful and much more simplistic than what one could call a generic Impressionist painting. Which is why I thought Impression wouldn't make a good example of Impressionism. --Jashiin (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
What has always concerned me is that having one article in one place seems to encompass the whole picture (no pun intended) that can be understood and grasped in context by the reader and viewer, who can then click a link and visit the sub divides. If only Monet the Impressionist or Van Gogh the Post-Impressionisrt, or Turner the Romantic say were to visually reside here, I suspect lots of young readers and other not so well versed in the visual arts would be deprived and limited in the educational value and the expertise we provide. What also troubles me is lets say we eliminate the Miro because of fair use issues - we are eliminating one of the most important figures of the 20th century and one of the most important representatives of Surrealism when most people don't even realize that Miro was a pioneer surrealist...Modernist (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
One article can't do everything. This one should concentrate on major epochs, as it does initially for for Western art, but then becomes increasingly bloated, especially for the 20th century. The epochs will have links to refer people to more detailed articles, and these in turn to more detailed still. If someone is interested in 20th century art they can click the link to an overview of that period, and if they are interested in a particular movement, there will be another link. If they want to find out about an artist in that movement, then they click to that article. (Also this works in reverse.) Surrealism is the place to assert Miro's place. He is obviously not of the rank of e.g. Picasso, Matisse and Duchamp in the 20th century. Ty 19:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe Tyrenius is making a valid suggestion here. While there's no doubt multiple artists whose work represents each era, one or two examples per section seems to be appropriate. If we choose to include the few that most represent or are most associated with an era, we can then expand upon that basis within the sub-article. This article should be a broad overview of the subject with each sub-article providing an expansion of the details provided here. --auburnpilot talk 20:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Tyrenius suggestion is both interesting and sound, however the complexities of the subject are far more intricate than lets just delete massive amounts of information to make it all look better. For an example take a look at Eastern Asian painting - where do you start. Research, and careful work needs to be completed...Modernist (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not advocating we delete massive amounts of information just to make it look better. It's about covering a subject accurately without overwhelming amounts of imagery and detail that is better suited for more specific articles. I don't deny that it is a large task to take on, or that it will require careful work, but I do believe it must be done.
As for the Eastern Asian painting section, I'd say there appears to be duplication in terms of the types of painting techniques and styles represented. We'll certainly need to choose carefully, but I don't think it is impossible to represent the overall view of the subject using a limited sampling. The content is not going to be lost, just moved to a better location while leaving a representative image or two here. --auburnpilot talk 21:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
In terms of the nature of the beast I would start by respectfully enlisting the aid of PericlesofAthens (talk · contribs) who is the expert editor who supplied most of the East Asian information in the article. I'll leave a message on his talk page...Modernist (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello everybody; I'm just now entering this discussion, so excuse me if I repeat anything that has already been said. User:Tyrenius writes of this article's main focus: "It is not concerned with the development of individual artists' works, but with developments over centuries and globally." Yes, but you'll find it hard even in that type of discussion to avoid mentioning individual artists, especially those considered archetypal to certain movements. Mentioning three or four artists per era/culture/movement/etc. and illustrating some of their works is not exhaustive for the scope of this article. As for East Asian painting, I would not begrudge the Wiki title "expert editor" but I would hardly call myself an expert in the field of East Asian artwork! That sub section's gallery doesn't seem any larger than those of other sub sections, but perhaps the amount of pictures accompanying the text can be reduced to say, one or two. Even if there are some duplicates in painting techniques and styles, these aren't incredibly noticeable. In terms of format there is certainly a balanced variety of landscapes, portraits, domestic scenes, nature scenes, etc. If you pay attention to the dates of the paintings in each row, you'll also see a loose adherence to chronology, which addresses one of Ty's main concerns (i.e. representing different artwork over time).--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


A template was added to the top of the page claiming excessive or improper use of copyrighted material. The editor who placed the template should indicate which images are excessive and which copyrighted material is being improperly used. Otherwise, the template should be removed. freshacconci talktalk 18:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There are 43 non-free files being used on this article. That number could probably be reduced to about 10 or fewer without any real issues. But I really doubt that there is a need for all 43 non-free files that are currently on this page. ΔT The only constant 21:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I am reducing the number as I can. The difficulty is in the contemporary period. So far I have eliminated many and/or switched to PD when possible over a dozen and I will continue reducing the numbers...Modernist (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, a summary of images and their statuses can be found at User:Δ/Sandbox 4 ΔT The only constant 21:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the list, I knocked one down...Modernist (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Jan van Eyck 091.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Jan van Eyck 091.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Links to paintings[edit]

A large number of the paintings in the galleries here have their own articles - most in the 19th century section for example - but there are no links to the articles. No doubt the same is true of the sister "western" article. One way to check is via the image file "used in" links, if we only have one version. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That is complicated by the fact that we are not using titles in the captions - just artist names. To have workable links we need to add titles...Modernist (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Lascaux-aurochs.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Lascaux-aurochs.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Kandinsky- comp-8-580x401.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Kandinsky- comp-8-580x401.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Changed the file to a different one pending per above...Modernist (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Frida Kahlo[edit]

Regarding Crisco 1492's deletion of the Kahlo self-portrait: This issue was discussed at length in 2010 and it was agreed that the image would remain on only those three articles. At the time it was long discussed with many of the members of the project who focus on fair-use. The image was deemed to satisfy this Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. and was voted acceptable in those select cases. Kahlo was an important painter who was known for her self portraits in particular and she is especially important to the history of painting. I am going to return those fair use rationales and images to those articles. Thank you...Modernist (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Orca mitica nasca.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Orca mitica nasca.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Orca mitica nasca.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Apparatus and hand.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:Apparatus and hand.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Apparatus and hand.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


Removed tags per long discussions; images are replaced with PD whenever possible - see [14] also...Modernist (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-free images are not allowed in galleries, see WP:NFG. Thus, all non-free images currently placed in galleries need to be removed from the galleries. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
We have been discussing this for years and please read the link [15], the imagery is crucial to the subject and the galleries are practical, efficient, and economical...Modernist (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The problematic issue is contemporary art; and this is basically a reasonable usage...Modernist (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
That e-mail was later formalised globally as wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy and on Wikipedia as WP:NFC and in particular as WP:NFCC#3a which says that you should use as few non-free images as possible and as WP:NFG which says that non-free images aren't allowed in galleries. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
There is not one word about galleries in the link rather this paragraph that clearly is the basis for the use non-free imagery when there is no recourse (emphasis mine):

Some Wikimedia projects use media that is not free at all, under a doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing". There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Because the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions without having license or permission. Some works that are under licenses we do not accept (such as non-derivative) may meet these conditions. Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace with free media that would serve the same educational purpose.

We use the galleries because common sense tells us it is the best, most economic way to present the information here. These are paintings - visual works that must be seen - the format used is practical and works. The proviso use of non-free imagery here is always being reduced as works from the public domain become available...Modernist (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Just noting here that I removed two old tags, and one that was added recently but was never intended to be added to articles. It seems a shame to disfigure the article for readers just because of a dispute about policy among editors. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The non-free issue still exists, so that had to be readded. I've also added the {{very long}} template, as this article, while prose size is pushing passed the 100k limit, is too image-heavy for WP:SIZE. And I will agree that the "non-free review" template as written is more for file: pages, but we do need a template to call out at the top when there are broader general NFC issues that are being covered at NFCR for application at the article level. I will be making that template shortly. --MASEM (t) 22:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Wait a second, you changed it just now SV. That's bullshit. I knew we used this template all over to highlight article problems with NFC. I'm reverting that. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Just to point out : the template has been (Before today) edited to work and display a different message whether it was in main space or file space as to reflect the NFCR discussion. It simply lacked tags that indicated it as an article maintenance template when that functionality was added. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Just noting here that Masem has reverted me twice, and I see that a similar situation has developed on other articles, so I've opened an RfC on Template talk:Non-free review to ask whether the most recent tag should be added to articles at all. Until May this year, it was added only to file pages, but was edited at that point (without discussion that I can find) to allow it to be added to articles. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I will point out the the size issue is not necessarily due to text (though this article's prose exceeds 100k which is where it should be split even more), but in images - 391 image from a count a few days ago. This is technical size problem that needs to be fixed - I estimates that this page requires 3M of data to fully download (html and images) which is far too much for a typical page. The easiest solution is to move the image galleries into the respective schools and regional painting articles, leaving 30-50 inline images to highlight each section. --MASEM (t) 23:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Masem, that's a separate issue from tagging, and I see you've now reverted Ceoil too. Tagging effectively sprays graffiti on an article announcing one editor's disagreement with consensus. If consensus ends up being on your side, you won't need the tag, and if you need more eyes on the page, you can start an RfC. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The NFCR tag needs to be there to alert editors to the discussion, that's no question. Arguably that tag override the excessive non-free image tag, though obvious why that tag exists is why the article is at NFCR. The size issue, however, is a problem, because it goes against global consensus on what page sizes should be. There is no issue with maintenance tags as they are used throughout the project to alert editors to problems. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
You could add it to the article talk page if you want to alert editors. Adding it to the article is alerting readers, and there's no point in doing that. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
That's an option here (all the NFC used have their own articles, so there's no way the NFC will be deleted as a result), but not for many other cases, and since we are talking deletion, like with article deletion, it should be highlighted for any reader to see and comment. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

In regards to size (and whether the SIZE guidelines need updating) I put that question to VPP here [16]. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Clearly inappropriate here...Modernist (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
These tags are a form of harassment because certain projects are targeting certain articles and incorrectly interpreting both guidelines and policy:

Foundation licensing policy:

This is stated in an excerpt from Kat Walsh's post on Foundation mailing list:

Some Wikimedia projects use media that is not free at all, under a doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing". There are some works,

primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Because the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions without having license or permission. Some works that are under licenses we do not accept (such as non-derivative) may meet these conditions. Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace

with free media that would serve the same educational purpose.

...Modernist (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the community has agreed, time and time again, maintenance tags are not harassment and are completely appropriate. And the Foundation still requires exceptional use. Non-free on articles about the paintings themselves? Sure. Non-free for a selected notable examples of a specific school or period? Sure. Non-free as part of a image gallery on a top-level outline article that's already overfilling with images - that's a problem. --MASEM (t) 12:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect - that tag does not belong here; the community disagrees. This is in dispute; do not make arbitrary claims to the contrary...Modernist (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm talking about tags in general, which are being painted as "graffiti" and the like. There is the specific dispute here, but calling these out as harassment is completely ignoring the problem. Local consensus cannot override global. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Your addition of the too long tag *was* harrasment though, intemperate and pointy, as other have mentioned. Ceoil (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
No it wasn't. 391 images, free or not, is a stress on slow bandwidth connections, even if the text met WP:SIZE (hint, it doesn't though). There was a tag about the article being too long before that was removed, and yet the problem persists. It's not harassment, its the truth. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, yes it is. Which parts of the texts would you cut? Its already summary style, so has the daughter articles. I'm very interested in art history and have been reading about it for many years, but very tentative about any cuts here. Maybe you have better ideas gleamed from guidelines and driveby impressions? Pehalps if you care so deeply and it was not just pointy you might wander over to Middle ages. Ceoil (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I may do a quick test and immediate reversion, but I suspect if you cut out the galleries - both images and captions - you will get the prose count under 100k (I do not remember if gallery captions are counted in towards that). But if that doesn't do it, the removal of the galleries would also remove the need to justify calling out specific examples of art (particularly when you get to the non-frees used in the contemporary art period), which would also prune prose. And if that failed to do that, I would consider a split at some appropriate mid-point - I have not checked to see where the most balanced point, but I would think that a split that would put 19th, 20th, and 21st century art (where there is much more modern coverage) into a separate article as "History of Painting (1800s and beyond)" would work without losing much of the text already. I will note that I completely agree with the current organization of this article in terms of how to cover broadly all the periods and schools of art, and that ordering should be preserved, but that preservation can still happen over two articles if you split it chronologically. Mind you, this is "if" this has to be done. I don't know if the removal of galleries (which is critical for considering the overall byte count) will get you under or just a notch above 100k of prose, and if that does, then there's no reason to split, and it just becomes an issue of images. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay I did just check Middle Ages and it sits at 150 kb of prose, and more importantly was a recent FAC (May 2013) which passed even noting the excessive size - it was agreed there it couldn't be split. So I'll revoke my concern on the size of the prose here (that from there, there's IAR aspects when it comes to prose size where splitting never makes sense), but that still doesn't excuse this article from the image problem - both non-free image use and overall image use, which is still a size problem. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, but you see now were we are coming from in thinking you were trying to conflate one problem into three. So the prose is ok and we dont have to edit war with you any more on that. Great. You have to realise, huge amounts of work over years have gone into this page, by dedicated and informed, diligent volunteers, and your being calavelere, like some half informed civil servent with a rough guide. Ceoil (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Which is why I am trying to suggest a route that does nothing to dismantle the text (where the investment has been done) with the easily possible solution (removal of galleries, which take little work to build, and can be copied (with attribution) to the sub-articles. The thing to remember, that while we are an encyclopedia, we are also a digital one that is meant to be widely accessible (meaning there are technical limits to articles), and that we are meant to be a free encyclopedia with minimal use of non-free content. Articles often develop in ways that forget these goals, and thus like now, its necessary to course-correct them. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The latest non-free tag was most recently added by an obvious sockpuppet, CourtlyHades296 (talk · contribs), which adds to the impression that the article has been targeted for special attention (if you want to avoid calling it harassment). If there were global consensus that the kind of image use in this article is inappropriate, or that the article should be tagged, people wouldn't need to sock up to get their way. Masem, would you consider requesting a CU? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
You can if you feel it necessary, but I can assure you I didn't sock - this is the only account I use to edit WP. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Or if you're asking me to see about having a CU on that user, I'm not seeing evidence to justify it. That user is the one that dropped the NCFR notice for this page three days ago, and only readded the tag - their other actions have no sock-feel to it. (I have no idea whom that could be if they were socking based on their past contributions, the only suspicion is being familar with NFC at an early stage). Knowing the socking process, I don't think there is any sufficient evidence to immediately call it out as a suspected sock. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I seemed to imply that I believed it was you. I don't believe that. But it's likely to be someone connected to the small group of editors that focuses on this. A CU request coming from you would signal to them that you (as an admin who otherwise agrees with them) don't agree with this behaviour. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry I misread that too, now I understand what you meant. That said, again, I really don't feel there's evidence I can use in a proper CU request though I understand where you are coming from to see if it is another editor in NFC that did it; there's a hint, and if there was more, I would certainly include this facet, but I'm not seeing anything else that would be considered appropriate for a CU at this time - it's basically too little evidence to know for sure, and I personally wouldn't feel right or comfortable doing that (CU is not to be used as a witch hunt). That said, if you wish to start one, I would support my concern of a new editor that is knowledgeable about NFC for that. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Masem, nobody thinks you are a bad guy, but you have to appreciate people's passion and investment here, as I said youre trying to cut work that has been put in over many years. Its a unique and difficult situation showing 20th century art on wiki, and no real solution has been forwarded yet, though there has been no real problems either. Please be more sensitive, and less bullish, in implementing the Rulz. You treading on people. Ceoil (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
There are ways to cover the 20th century without resorting to as much non-free - recognizing that these all have their own articles on the work itself where the image is not in question. The way that non-free images are used in galleries is basically flaunting the Foundation's goal for free content and minimizing non-free elements. One does not need to see 40-some images of 20th century are in an overview of the entire history of painting to understand the entire history of painting. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
And now you're talking about images; as I stated - the article is informative, encyclopedic, and important. Visual art needs to be seen. The imagery in this article from the caves to the 21st century are all valuable inclusions. The WMF understands that artworks need to be seen; - Some Wikimedia projects use media that is not free at all, under a doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing". There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Two of the founding principles here are when necessary WP:IAR and WP:UCS those principles predates this article and predates the current interpretations put forth by your project...Modernist (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Of course art can be seen - we have individual articles for many of these paintings, their artists, and the schools and periods they come from. To understand "History of Painting" with numerous spinoff articles on specific schools and periods, however, you don't need 391 images to do so - it's a visual mess this way. You can do it with about 30-50 - one per major section - with more image-oriented displays appropriate when talking a specific school. No images need to be deleted at all. That helps to meet the technical concerns of WP:SIZE and article accessibility (as well as the reading comprehension due to having too many images), and for non-free media where we need to minimize its use. None of the non-free here are being removed, so we're still allowing their use per your WMF quote, but we just avoid excessive and duplication use, which is the other factor the WMF wants through the non-free resolution. You can still use a small number of non-frees on this paper for a few highly notable examples in-line with the prose. The page will still be visual pleasing and showcase some of mankind's most important art. But it is completely impractical, not only from a accessibility and non-free aspect, but from a simple reading comprehension, that "History of Painting" is going to fully educate the reader on the subject that requires them to be able to see all those images at the same time. Again, the solution is relatively simple is to simply move the galleries to the subarticles, where that reading comprehension will be better enhanced there. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok lets see you try so, with half the insight, thought and nuance Modernist has shown. Relatively simple? Please. This is a notoriously complex and intangled area; we should be so luckly that its coverage is handled now so well. Ceoil (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Again, the change is simple: relocate the galleries to the respective period/school articles, perhaps readd images inline so that there's exactly one per h2/h3 section head. No text is changed. All issues solved. The argument that is being made "but we need to see this gallery of art to understand this article" is the only reason given for keeping it this way, and that argument fails when one recognizes this is a top-level article from a broad field that is covered by dozens of period/school articles, hundreds of artist articles, and thousands of articles on individual art pieces; readers who need to dig deeper will see more than enough art to appreciate it. --MASEM (t) 00:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Not a chance. Your ridiculous attempt at censorship here will not fly. Your interpretation of policy and guidelines and this subject are incorrect. Your project is utterly hellbent on destroying visual arts articles that you plainly do not have a clue regarding. This entire attempt at censorship is shameful, disgraceful and a misreading of the purpose of this encyclopedia and this website. My suggestion to you is to go fishing somewhere else. Concerning WP:SIZE - I read It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus....Modernist (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
What censorship? How are we blocking the dissemination of visual arts across the entire project by asking for moving the galleries to the subarticles? And common sense tells me - this article has one of the highest as-delivered byte counts compared to the rest of WP due to the image count. That hurts our ability to send this page to people with low bandwidth/low-end computers. The rest of the content is just fine, so common sense says to make the easiest fix that harms nothing. The only thing blocking this is the cries that cutting the galleries is akin to censorship, which is a nonsense argument. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I gotta add - you and your project would like Rembrandt perhaps to represent the Baroque, Giotto the middle ages, and Leonardo the Renaissance and Courbet to represent the first half of the 19th century and Winslow Homer the last half...hmmm...and then we just tell the reader there was also Titian, Vermeer, Rubens, Giotto, El Greco, Raphael, Monet, Sisley, Van Gogh, Eakins, Chardin, Tiepolo, Tintoretto, Botticelli, Poussin, Wuzhun Shifan, Ma Lin, and they could leapfrog all over into all the various blue links, all over the world - so they can click to India and then to China in the 17th century, and then they can click to the 16th century Realists, and understand all the context in order to understand this subject...hmmm...that'll really be neater than this messiness, I don't think so. Take it somewhere else...Modernist (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, on a broad, outline article like this one, I would expect that you can only identity a tiny fraction of the most important artists and works from that period. That's exactly how an outline article should be written so that the reader will want to dig further and learn more. An outline article should not attempt to be exhaustive list of every detail, but a broad stroke to orient editors to the proper location. You aren't writing a book that is meant to be read end-to-end, you are writing an encyclopedia to guide readers to find the information they need to location, and there needs to be an efficiency in how we show and deliver that to the reader. If you want to write a book-style approach, you're free to do that over at Wikibooks. --MASEM (t) 02:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Ridiculous - this is not an outline - nor is it a book - it's a wikipedia article - little different from what you're used to perhaps; as I said you propose censoring this article...Modernist (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
As it is currently written, it is a broad, high-level overview of the whole of the history of painting since providing all the details of the history would be far too long. That's the definition of an outline article. As written, you aren't going too deep into the specifics of any period, which is completely appropriate at this level, saving those details for the sub-articles. And please stop calling it censorship, because it clearly isn't. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Masem, I've gone through the article and cut a fair few images, but frankly would be uncomfortable with removing more. I'd be creating gaps in the narrative for one, and dont have confindence in my judgement for more. You might be better placed, seeing as how your positioning youself as an authority, on everything ever. Ceoil (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I dare not touch the main article for fear of getting chewed out. But I again state that the galleries can be moved to subarticles without a single change in the prose (only layout issues); the narrative does not make any direct connections to the galleries (on a quick scan , that is), only to provide representative samples of the section it is in; the images inline which are subjects of discussion in the prose they are in aren't an issue. --MASEM (t) 02:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Or you could back content people, not be such a prick, and get a life. Ceoil (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:NPA. --MASEM (t) 02:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Reality trumps wiki guidelines; if you want to play that game, we are advised to try and bypass slavish lawering per IAR. Try harder. I dont have the confidence to make such nuanced removals, but you seems bullish, lets see them. Ceoil (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"And common sense tells me - this article has one of the highest as-delivered byte counts compared to the rest of WP due to the image count." Pure horseshit. Try looking at September 2010 in sports, or the important Wikipedia article 2012 in American television, which sits at 400+K, a page that gets up to 200 views a day, mostly by editors. Or the critical encyclopedic article List of Honorverse characters, which recently set a record with 48 page views in one day. Role-playing video game, a topic scholars consider to be critical to any well-rounded education, 149K. Doctor (Doctor Who), a page Masem frequently edits, sits at 156K, but apparently all those people with low-end cell plans aren't all that important when it comes to that article. And how about Results of the 2010 United Kingdom general election by parliamentary constituency, 245KB, which has yet to garner 30 hits in one day?

But Macem's common sense tells him that this article "has one of the highest as delivered byte counts (he must know what he's talking about because it sounds so technical!!!) compared to the rest of WP due to the image count." Common sense tells me his common sense is nonsensical. Every one of the recent edits cutting this article down should be reverted. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The text part alone is about 118k of prose, ends up being 600k of HTML. That's comparable to all the other pages you cite. That's not the problem. The 391 images on this page add (assuming 6k a thumbnail) about 2.3MB of additional data. That is a problem. --MASEM (t) 06:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
If it's a problem you should have no trouble producing some complaints. A comment, an article somewhere bewailing the slow download speed of this article--something besides your "common sense". And shouldn't you be over at List of dog breeds getting those editors straightened out? Surely one image should be sufficient for the reader to get an idea of what a dog looks like. With a good description of the differences between breeds, the reader could use his imagination. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Discussions both at WP:NFCR and WP:VPP have shown others having problems loading the page. --MASEM (t) 07:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Please give us the diff links. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, someone removed the tag that linked to the NFCR discussion, but that's still here: [17]. The VPP I linked earlier but that's here: [18]. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you even know what a diff is? Tom Reedy (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

List of dog breeds is a problem too but doesn't also suffer non-free image issues. However, jumping on that would be considered pointy (as well as any other examples that are just excessive free images, since my concern is more the non-frees) - that's a reason why I started the VPP thread as to set what should be expected for maximum image use in an article. I will add the dog breed article to the VPP thread though. --MASEM (t) 07:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, it would be pointy at this time, but not later. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, since the primary issue here is non-free content (none exists at the list of dog breeds). I completely understand the complain that Modernist had put forth before that without being able to show a roughly equal number of examples of contemporary art (most non-free) as with other schools, it trivalizes the contemporary art period, so some is needed. But instead of the solution that has been done which is to put more non-frees into galleries without significant discussion of the works (against NFCC policy); the other solution is to simply reduce the number of examples of free works from other periods and schools to match, and when you see that and recognize that there are size issues with the article and how this article is structures as a high-level outline with numerous subarticles, then removing the galleries is the most logical, common sense approach that solves both problems. The problem is the longer run is that while both SIZE and ACCESS clearly imply too many images on an article is a problem, there's no explicit advice, and so the question to figure out before addressing an article like the dog breeds is to know if there should be such advice. Again, here removing images is necessitated by the non-free content requirement, the overall image count a symptom of the problem. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Your "one-size-fits-all" mindset seems to have caused you to think that exceptions are not allowed on Wikipedia, when clearly they are depending upon the needs of the individual article. Your suggestion that non-free content complies with criterion 8 only if it is discussed in the article is an incorrect interpretation and borders on encouraging editors to violate WP:OR. And the impression I get is that you believe that articles are restricted to only one use of non-free content, which is incorrect also. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
NFCC#8 requires "contextual significance" (read: discussed in the prose), and to avoid the original research issue, you need sourcing. This is standard across all WP. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
MASEM—"contextual significance" does not in every instance mean "discussed in the prose". This can lead to ludicrous contrivances in prose in an effort to justify non-free image use where "contextual significance" is obvious. As an example, if you have an article on an artist, the inclusion of an example of the artist's work may be justified even in the absence of commentary in the prose of the article about that specific artwork. In this case the understanding would be that the artwork was typical of the style for which the artist was notable. This is an arrangement in which "contextual significance" can be said to have been established despite an absence of discussion in the prose. Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes it does. An example piece of art (that is otherwise non-free) by an artist should be discussed by sources as a notable example from that artist. (Of course, I am 99% sure that as long as the artist is notable, you will already have sources to back up at least one example piece of art to showcase, that's why they are notable is for their art). The contextual significance is necessary to assure that we have transformed the work of art into an educational work to meet fair use concerns, as presentation without discussion does not transform the content. --MASEM (t) 18:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. You don't get to define the words in the English language. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You say "The contextual significance is necessary". I agree 100%. But there is no language in policy insisting on "discussion" in an article of an image that might be non-free. "Contextual significance" either has or has not been established. It doesn't matter if it takes "discussion" to establish it or if it is established in the absence of discussion. Bus stop (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes it does, this is long standing precedent. Without demonstrating an image's significance through sourcing, that basically opens the door to widely include any image whatsoever. This is why, for example, we have WP:NFC#UUI#5, which requires images to have commentary about them.
And I need to remember people: We are not saying you have to strip all non-frees from this. Important artwork that has been identified as key works of contemporary art by sources can be used in-line with the prose. --MASEM (t) 20:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm having a similar problem at Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, where Masem wants to delete the first image in this section, even though both images have been extensively discussed by the sources, and both have been distributed by the copyright holder. Not only discussed, but argued about in a way that's difficult to write up without causing BLP violations, because claims and counter-claims are flying fast and furious. So I have written about it very conservatively, so much so that Masem doesn't understand how extensive the discussion about these images has been. As a result, he wants to delete one. I've argued here that he's effectively setting himself as an editor-in-chief. I completely accept his good intentions, but Wikipedia can't work with editors who are creating content being expected to report to one person, who has to be satisfied that text is written in a way that supports one extreme interpretation of an image-use policy. That's the backroom interfering with the editorial department. :) SlimVirgin (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not the only one arguing against its inclusion, so please comment on the content, not the editor. There are very strict requirements for image inclusion for a content designating itself as "The Free Encyclopedia" (not "The Free Encyclopedia when we want it to be") to use non-free content in an exceptional manner. Both these cases fail to meet these requirements that are demanded by the Foundation. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
What a bunch of rule driven crap - what is demanded by the foundation is an encyclopedia that informs, is educational and important - this - but is it free? is it not free? is it too big? is it a little to big? is drivel and a lame excuse for a delusion of authority. If you want changes try a different article - go elsewhere - and drop the stick...Modernist (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
A free content encyclopedia is the mission of the Foundation. You are showing no respect for that at all by thumbing your nose at the concept. I'm offering a solution that lets you keep some non-free that covers contemporary art in the same balance as the rest of the periods given that there are numerous articles that go into more detail, as to help meet that mission. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
This article does not need your meddling; it serves the mission of the Foundation quite well. If you don't think so - take it to them...Modernist (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
"The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." So no, galleries of non-free do not serve the mission. They have to be removed; I've provided a solution that keeps all the hard work with the text and offloads the images to subarticles where they are better suited in the first place, and all you are saying is "I don't want you touching my article." That's a problem. You're owning this far too much. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • You are wrong again. Your interpretation of policies regarding galleries is out of date; inconsistent with the mission of the foundation; and while yours is the conventional interpretation; you are missing the mark when it comes to presenting these complex historical visual art histories. I'm sorry Masem; nothing personal; but you are totally off the mark...Modernist (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • What part of WP:NFG am I mis-interpreting? I've even offered suggestions to avoid it. And you just said it yourself, the history of painting is complex -- too big to be covered in one article. That's why there's dozens of subarticles on the specific regional and schools of painting, to go into more detail there and that's where it is completely reasonable to have more images (including non-free) as more specific, detailed examples. You just don't need to have them here on the top-level overview page for all of painting's history. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • This was included for a reason - is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified - as these exceptions are {emphases mine)...Modernist (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Yep, the part that says "usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. That's the part he's missing. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The only exceptions that I've ever seen cleared by consensus are generally when there is free and non-free in the same gallery as to compare elements of the free and non-free images; there is no case that I'm aware of having wide consensus of a gallery of non-frees, by themselves, presented without addition comment (save for brief captions). --MASEM (t) 23:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
So I did a test edit that I immediately reverted, only to get an accurate size assessment to understand the impact of the images. This edit ([19]) simply eliminated the galleries and removed/added some white space - that was all.
This version is only 393k of raw delivered HTML (about 33% less) without changing any prose. It also cuts the total # of images to 43 (+/- a few in my quick count); at 6k a piece, that's now only 260k addition bytes delivered, or a total article delivery size of 657k, 20% than with the galleries. That is more in line with what we should expect articles to send to end users (and of course it loads much faster). The proseline remains at 118k, just as with the gallery-based version.
Is this version perfect? No, there's some whitespace and layout issues that would have to be tuned, and there's several "blank" h4/h5 sections when you get to painting of specific parts of the world as they were only holding gallery placeholders without any discussion. But we're talking trivial effort and effort that would have had to been done with the galleries; eg, for the United States section, a brief paragraph to introduce notable American artist (not otherwise described), or perhaps simply providing the seealso links to art in each of these countries. I would also argue that there's room to add a dozen-some more example artwork in the second half of the article in line with the prose - that extra 70-80k of image data is not going to be an issue. And of course, that completely resolves the non-free overuse that the article currently has. Basically, this version is an article that meets our SIZE and accessibility and image (free and nonfree) requirements, with only a dash of IAR for the prosesize issue (but as pointed Middle Ages gets to 150k prose line, and its an FA, so 118k isn't pushing it).
Remember, my suggest is not only just to remove the galleries from here by to transplant them into the respective side articles, so none of those images should be lost. --MASEM (t) 07:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
"simply eliminated the galleries". Oh dear god. Thank you Tom. Ceoil (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Early Eastern influences on Western painting?????[edit]

I am very confused about the second paragraph from the top of the page. It has a good premise, that both West and East influenced each other, but I am not so sure about the statement claiming that Europe learned from Africa, Japan, China, Islam etc... before any of those learned from Europe. When, for instance, in early history, did Japan or China ever influence Western paintings? Islam did, perhaps, but the reverse is equally true during that time. The only civilization of the East that I would say influenced Europe in painting before Europe influenced the East, would be, perhaps, Ancient Egypt. Wikipedia gets a little carried away with belittling Europe and inflating the greatness of everyone else at times.Pierceunique (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of painting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)