This template 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.
Yes, lots more - arduous but rewarding, no? I was using the contributors to the discussions on sex ... there is obviously a distinction to be made at some point between surrealists and those working in the style of surrealism... this list should be limited to actual 'paid up' members with a second category then added for quasi-surrealists? Artiquities (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
You've done a really good job...Modernist (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I was surprised to see Henry Moore on the list, and in scanning his page I'm not seeing anything about surrealism and this template isn't on the page. His work seems to be consistently called Abstract art. Does this template have many examples like that?, I haven't checked. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
This template could be improved by listing key theorists of surrealism, and schools of thought influenced or dependent upon it, particularly given how highly conceptual the thing was/is. The inclusion of writers, theorists and scholars of the movement - Georges Bataille for example, or on the other hand Herbert Read - or those involved with and influenced along different paths, e.g. Jacques Lacan. We'd have to be selective, of course, but the simple list of artists is both categorically restrictive and, in practice, much less selective about their involvement in surrealism per se. Tosk Albanian (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
What an excellent idea! Bataille should definitely be included, and Julien Gracq. You definitely have my support; please just go ahead. I'll think of other non-artists (sounds strange, doesn't it? ) and add to the template in due course.
Dear Patrick - great! I'm still open to ideas about the name and scope of it - if it were a 'writers and thinkers' section I'd personally have Breton, Aragon and Soupault up front and in bold. I'll see what you think! Tosk Albanian (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
It's looking good; thanks for your excellent work. Beware of using boldface, though; have a look at MOS:BOLD, MOS:BOLD#OTHER and MOS:NOBOLD; you'll see that use of boldface is pretty restricted, and using it for emphasis should be avoided. Other than that, what you've done is a very useful improvement; thanks again.
Thank you for your reply. I re-read those MOS pages again, just to make sure, and concluded that there are very few legitimate cases for using boldface; the most regular one, of course, is the first occurrence of the subject of an article in the lead of its own article. Thank you for returning those three names to normal face, at your convenience. Above all, thank you for taking this initiative; it will prove useful to our readers.
Thank you for your hard work! And no problem, there were some wild cards in there that on balance were dubious or didn't have enough to do with capital-S Surrealism - but Dylan's involvement with the London International Surrealist Exhibition clinches it for me,