Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Archive 2

WikiProject Visual arts Tags

Does this project have a template to put at the top of articles that should be a part of this project? I have created a few articles that are related to this project. 2 are of particular interest and import here Haystacks (Monet) and Campbell's Soup Cans. How do I affiliate them with this project? TonyTheTiger 15:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Diego Velázquez

Relevant featured article being reviewed. Thanks. Chick Bowen 02:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Diego Velázquez has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy (Talk) 13:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Campbell's Soup Can's FAC

Campbell's Soup Cans is a featured article candidate. Leave comments here. Note I have done much editing since some of the current comments. TonyTheTiger 17:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The next level

Is it just me or is this project desperately in need of a swift kick in the buttocks? I know that visual arts is a woefully neglected sector of Wikipedia, but it never will be anything else if we don't become more proactive about providing better entry points for getting involved. I'd like to see a few things happen, largely in emulation of some of the more successful projects:

1. Make a basic WikiProject Visual Arts template and get, at the very least, all of the current articles in the Category:visual arts tagged with that template. There are hundreds of other articles that could fall under this umbrella (e.g., all of the artist entries).
2. Completely reconsider the organization of the project page. It leaves me with absolutely no clue as to what to do to help other than add my name to a participants list.
3. Get some style/article formatting guidelines in place.
4. Create some doable tasks for folks who might not have tons of time to devote (including the taks of adding the template from #1 to appropriate articles).

For example, I just developed a {{needs artist infobox}} template that can be placed on the discussion page of any artist who does not yet have an Template:Infobox Artist for their entry. Adding this stub to the talk page adds the article to the Category:Articles that need an artist infobox. So there is the opportunity to go around adding this stub, but even better, the opportunity to generate infoboxes for artists. The same could be done for individual works of art. I've done some work for the Film project adding infoboxes to film entries. I found it rewarding as I could readily contribute to movie articles that were beyond my usual sphere of knowledge.

Anyway, my point is that a little focus and organization would go a long way toward drawing people into this project, which I think is so worthwhile and vital to the broader mission. It doesn't have to be too dramatic, since we are clearly limited in participation at present. But is anyone with me? Planetneutral 04:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree the project seems rather inactive (and largely focused on modern art), but I think there are already too many templates as a substitute for any real improvement in articles. I dislike the current artist infobox template myself, as it inevitably reduces the size of the main picture, delays the appearance of a second picture, all to give information that is mostly in the first para anyway, and is much less relevant for artists than for other types of article. Obviously in the case of art and artists, what people want to see is the art. I haven't yet removed any templates, but there are plenty of articles where I could see myself doing this if one appeared. Many artist articles are just too short to have room for a template (set out as it currently is) and a second picture, and I know which I think is the most important. I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way. What the project needs is more editors who are knowledgeable to update and improve the 1911 entries, and add new ones. I'm afraid I don't see what you are proposing as an improvement. A horizontal template to add at the bottom of articles would be a step forward though.

Also a new articles page for the project (like this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/New Articles), which would, if people started using it, give a much better idea of who is actually active in this area than you get from this page.

I think the category tree also needs sorting out into a smaller number of initial sub-categories: Art world/business, Applied & decorative arts - that sort of thing. Printmaking categories are especially confusing & I am thinking about a proposal to address that. Johnbod 17:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate the comments. Well, I think what I was proposing was simply an effort to draw more people to this project and, once getting them here, have some concrete things that they can actually do. Hopefully, some of those people will be the knowledgeable people you seek, who will go on and start new articles and that sort of thing. On the other hand, some people are just not going to be authors of original content, but they want to participate and contribute. And I think there ARE tasks for these people.

And regardless of why someone comes here, what they get right now is a confusing mess that leaves you with no idea of how to meaningfully participate.

As for the infobox, I can see your points there. Just not sure I entirely agree. Isn't the real problem ultimately that the articles are too short? I'm also not sure that the biography project folks wouldn't eventually get an infobox on those pages anyway. That is where the template came from after all.

That said, I can let it go, but then what do you do about all the artists that do have infoboxes already? Planetneutral 20:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see the project become rather more collaborative. Maybe my comments above seem more negative than I meant them. There are a number of very good editors in the area, but I think at the moment there is so much that clearly needs doing that people just choose what they can do best, which is of course fine, and what I do myself, collaborating a bit on a personal basis. I think many arts editors also prefer to do their own thing, compared with other areas - again, that goes for me as well. But a bit more overall sense of direction would be helpful in places. I haven't done big edits on a page with a really problematic infobox (the painting one seems generally slightly preferable to the artist one) but if I did a lot on say Rembrandt the current infobox would be something to tackle. Of course many articles are too short, and far too much of what is there (on older stuff) is 1911 - that was my point I thought! Tinkering with infoboxes won't make them usefully longer. Personally I think that there are loads of articles where even someone with limited knowledge can make improvements using a few basic books, but I understand that people are rightly reluctant to trim 1911 verbiage without putting content in its place, and this can require more knowledge. Johnbod 20:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A few new things

I went ahead and created a project template: {{Visual arts}}

It generates this:

I also created a project userbox: {{User WikiProject Visual arts}}

It generates:

This user is a participant in WikiProject Visual arts.

I'm open to suggestions for improvement. More to come! Planetneutral 04:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Printmaking Categorization

This is not at all good at the moment. The current scheme(s) are:

Under "artists" - "artists by medium":Engravers, Etchers, Printmakers - all by nationality.

"Printmakers" is a sub-category of "Printmaking", but the others are not.

Problems with this:

• Some people are in "printmakers", some in "engravers" or "etchers"

• Only two specific techniques have headings, and national sub-cats are very incomplete - no "German etchers" for example. Nothing at all for lithography, woodcut, mezzotint, any of the modern techniques etc etc.

• The division is highly artificial - after about 1540 almost all engravers did etching as well, & most etchers did some engraving - in both cases very often on the same plate.

Solution: "Printmakers" has to be the way to go - even Dürer was already using 3 techniques, later artists like Picasso & Munch use a much wider range. So merge "engravers" and "etchers" into "printmakers" - leaving a category "engravers on metalwork" for the various non-printmaking engravers that are also in that category.

Personally I would like a sub-division by of "printmakers" by periods, say:

• Gothic
• Renaissance
• Baroque
• 18th and 19th century
• Modernist
• Contemporary (active from say 1970)

- then by nationality. Or maybe that should be a separate sub-categorization of "printmakers"? It would also be good to have lists, for more detail on which techniques artists mainly used - something for later perhaps.

Thoughts anyone? Johnbod 17:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• copied from my talk page; I'll respond tomorrow Johnbod 04:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod - Thanks for your comment! I am fairly new as a Wikipedia contributor so am particularly appreciative of any input. I understand your hesitation about adding Etchers as a category to those artists who are already categorized by "Nationality etcher." Ultimately, my rational for adding more individuals to the 'Etchers' category was an attempt to emulate the List of photographers. Also, I think that it is a good idea to be able to look up etchers generally as a group and not just by nationality. However, after having read your remarks at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Printmaking_Categorization, it does seem that Printmakers might be a superior catch-all category. I have several suggestions:

1. Perhaps we could create a "List of printmakers" page (emulating the "List of photographers") and, instead of following the "List of photographers" categorizations by 'type of photography' (e.g. doc, fash, etc.) we could put etch, eng, lith, mezz, etc. for type of printmaking?

2. We could simultaneously switch all nationality categorizations to "Nationality printmaker" instead of the current "Nationality etcher" or "Nationality engraver"

3. Once 1 and 2 were accomplished, we could then make the "Etchers" and "Engravers" category pages automatically redirect to "List of Printmakers" or "Printmakers" in case anybody decides to branch out under those sub-headings again.

4. I know that you are also keen to categorize by period and I think that is a good idea too. I definitely thinks that it makes sense to allow people to cross reference and categorize in many ways. My suggestion would be to do a period code on the "List of printmakers" page (like the eng, etch, lith, etc. but for period: goth, bar, ren, etc.) or perhaps we could just do a sub categories under the Printmakers category, in a separate section from, but in addition to, nationality sub headings? The only concern I have with the latter is how we then integrate with pages like Gothic art?

I hope that my description and ideas are comprehensibly put - if not, please bear with this newcomer! If it is, it would be fantastic to hear your thoughts!

Merteuil 02:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok; 1) & 2) I absolutely agree about.

3) Yes if this is technically possible - I'm not sure if it is. But it would not be a huge amount of work to check & clear them out every so often. I'm not sure I would want to delete the categories as "Printmakers" would not seem an obvious alternative to many people.

4) I'm not sure what I think here. Above I think I say categorize by period, then by nationality, but maybe this is too complicated. Perhaps it's easier to do the list like that. If you do periods first, then nationality, you can be more flexible on Netherlands/Flanders/Belgium etc & have Venetian etc as sub-heads for the earlier Italian periods, which would all be useful.

On linking to Gothic art etc, printmakers is a sub-category of "Category:Printmaking", so you could just link to (ie categorize as) that. But if the first sub-categories were periods, articles of the same period could go straight to them.

Complicated stuff! Johnbod 04:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Johnbod - another thing - I was looking at the "List of photographers" page again and it appears that most of the photographers on the list link to the artist's individual page but not vice versa. Considering that what we are proposing to do is essentially create a new category (as well as create an overall list), I think that links should go both ways. In view of this, do you think that the page should be called "List of printmakers" or just alter the "Printmakers" page? Vis a vis your #3, why don't we see what we can do once 1 and 2 are accomplished? I am not fully up on the technical possibilities so am happy to defer to your experience on that one! Would you be interested in trying to organize 1 & 2 with me? I could do the etchers page and you could do the engravers page, or vice versa? Vis a vis the period/nationality discussion, I think that it would be helpful to have categories for both (e.g. "Nationality printmaker" and "Period printmaker"). As you point out, there may be some difficulties with nationality classifications (Flanders/Netherlands/Belgium) but I think we will also have the odd problem with periods too - what if someone overlaps a defined time period (for example if there is a "Contemporary, 1970-present" period, an artist may well have worked from 1940-1980, in which case it might be difficult to classify them)? If we went with the "List of printmakers" category name, we could use the "Printmakers" page to have two sub categorizations - by nationality and period (Nationality printmaker (as exists now) and Period printmaker (to be created)). At the top we could put the link to the "List of printmakers" page for the comprehensive list of individuals and their type of printmaking. What do you think? Merteuil 20:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The List will be in the category & sub-heads could (?) be put in sub-categories (maybe not, technically). The List could also be put into every "See also" section, though that is a bit of work. I'd favour a single list - that reduces the problem of people being hard to categorize, as you just check the next section. Perhaps you're right re nationality and period for cats, though that is harder for maintenance. We could certainly start the list now & see how it looks. In the discussion referenced in the next section below there is a link to one for the Simpsons (!) which is more sophisticated than most I've seen. Johnbod 02:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Uh oh! I think I am getting a bit confused - I took a look at the Simpsons structure - lists within categories and categories within lists! Phew! Let's go ahead and try to organize the printmakers though - as the more experienced Wiki contributor, would you like to set up the page a la the 'List of photographers' and then I will jump in to help reclassify everything!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merteuil (talk • contribs) 04:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC). Merteuil 04:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok - I will start it in my sandpit, or one off here, but will post link here when it's started. Not sure when that will be (not very long) Johnbod

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American artists

This needs input. Tyrenius 00:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox List of Printmakers

I have started a draft one at User:Johnbod/Simple P list - comments please! I'm not sure about the layout myself, although I do think a chronological approach is right. There is a discussion of the idea two sections up. I also started this one: User:Johnbod/List of printmakers but decided the format was too complicated for a fluid list. At the moment I haven't put headings in for Japanese Ukiyo-e artists, but they should probably either have their own list of go here. There are 35 pages in the "Ukiyo-e artists" category, plus 24 in the "Japanese printmakers". Johnbod 22:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• I had a look at both the pages and would also lean towards the layout on the User:Johnbod/Simple P list page. My only concern with the layout as it stands is that having a nationality listing under each period heading could become unwieldy. May I make a proposal that we try breaking the printmakers down by period and then alphabetically within each period? Then, after each artist's name could be their nationality and type of printmaking. Perhaps we could keep exact dates for the artist's own pages since it is already somewhat implied by their period classification? An example of what I propose would be: Martin Schongauer, German (Eng)... Schongauer would be found under the 15th Century categorization and alphabetically ordered. My only final query would be about the time periods chosen - is there any standard within the art community on Wikipedia for these types of breakdowns or does it tend to depend on the medium under discussion? Should there be some sort of cross linkage with a description of the periods themselves - the Baroque, Renaissance pages, etc. I suppose the only problem with such period classifications is their specificity to a given geographic region, not necessarily encompassing or applicable to all the nationalities included in the overall list (e.g. the Baroque period being specific to Europe or the Edo period to Japan). Perhaps we should stick to century classifications only - 14th century, 15th century, etc.? This way we can easily include all nationalities? What do you think? Merteuil 05:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree with just putting the nationality on each line for the later periods - after 1700 maybe, or 1800. Except maybe for the Japanese, who (if not in their own list) logically go in their own section - maybe divided by school. For the earlier periods it's not such a problem - I've put Northern rather than German for the C15 for example. I also think that contemporary printmakers, who will end up being much the largest group, should perhaps be divided by continents say, and then alphabetically. I'd prefer to stick to chronological sequence pre-1700 at least - there won't be so many people that finding them would be a problem. Or they could all be alphabetic, but in that case I think the dates are important. I don't think there's a problem using slightly different arrangements for different periods. I may do some sections in different styles for comparison - or anyone else please feel free to do so, but leave edit summaries explaining what you're doing Johnbod 16:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• One other thought (perhaps a crazy one)! Is there any way to create a button in Wikipedia to allow people to sort a page in different ways? For example, if we entered three types of information for an artist - their nationality, period and type of printmaking - could we set it up so that the user could sort the page in their preferred way (kind of like the way you can sort search results on Amazon - by 'bestselling' 'cheapest' 'most popular,' etc.)? It might make this whole page a lot easier in the end (although perhaps a bit more complicated in the short term)? Any thoughts? Merteuil 05:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this lies some way ahead technically - I've not seen anything like it on WP. Johnbod 16:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No this is possible, see Help:Sorting, or Ranked list of Dutch provinces for an example --Donar Reiskoffer 13:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks - that would be the ideal then Johnbod 13:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just seen "Liste de graveurs français" on the French Wiki - a similar solution (not with sorting). Johnbod 19:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have just taken a look at the "Liste de graveurs français" and also the Ranked list of Dutch provinces. I think that the layout of the first is quite similar to Johnbod's sandbox prototype and looks good. The Ranked list of Dutch provinces page is great in that it has the sorting ability. Do you feel comfortable going ahead with something like that for the printmakers page? I think it would work really well for country and then century of principal work. I have just realized though - the only problem might be on sorting by type of printmaking - we would probably have to have a separate column for each type which could get quite sizeable... Alternately, if we only had one column for 'types of printmaking,' the sorting feature would only sort based on the first type of printmaking listed within that column. And, if people don't enter that in a standardized order (something that would probably be impractical to upkeep), it is unlikely that sorting by type of printmaking would be effective. Sorry to be a downer after making the initial suggestion - if anyone has an idea how to get around that problem, it would be very helpful as I still think having some type of sorting on the page would make it all a lot easier and cleaner! Any thoughts? Merteuil 04:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've been looking at it, & whilst it is tempting, I have to agree. It is clearly harder for people to add to - many just wouldn't bother, or would make mistakes that would I suppose make the page look wierd. As you say the techniques are a problem - I suppose you could have Wo, Eng, Et, Other, but it's not ideal. Some countries would also be tricky - Belgian/Flemish, Dutch/Netherlandish, British/English/Scots/Welsh etc - if you have headings that is limited to some extent. Reluctantly I think it might be overambitious - especially I think many people would just avoid editing it. If we had all the printmakers on I think it might make a big file-size for the page. Certainly more maintenance would be needed.

I've changed parts of the sandbox list from sections to just headers, which I think is better - it certainly cuts the size of the contents box down. Johnbod 09:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think that the 'just headers' is the way to go - as you did with the 17th century. Cutting down the size of the contents box would be great. My last suggestion is that perhaps we could make the 'type of printmaking' codes into its own little key at the top too - just to make it more obvious to people accessing the page? Then, do you want to launch the page and I can start helping to put printmakers on! (Or should I do this while it is in in the Sandbox?) Let me know how I can help! Merteuil 17:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed re key - I meant to do that. I think it should be a bit more populated before it hits the mainspace, but please anybody add names to it (link again: User:Johnbod/Simple P list). I will tidy up the headings, on the C17 model, & do the key etc, unless anyone beats me to it. We should be able to take it public this week. Thanks, Johnbod 17:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jørgen_Mahler_Elbang

Would appreciate your input. Planetneutral 18:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simon_Mitchell

Again, your input is appreciated. Planetneutral 03:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)