Open main menu

Wikipedia β

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts

WikiProject Visual arts (Rated Project-class)
This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts:


An image requestEdit

Hello. I'm not proficient at uploading or documenting images, so if someone can please assist then feel free to consider Frida Kahlo turning over in her grave and waving at you. Or giving her sister the finger. The new page Memory, the Heart (as I told AB, not to be confused with The Heart, She Holler), which is already getting substantial views, could use an image of the subject painting. I know help is on the way, my new app told me so. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Renewing request because of the amount of views of Memory, the Heart. Any takers on uploading an image? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Randi, I found it here, it's just that I need to have some approval that there is no copy right. Someone who is in charge of her estate or museum needs to write to me and I'll help uploading it. I think that's how it works. --Forever Art (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
It will certainly be in copyright, but if there is an article on the painting can be loaded to en:wp (not Commons) with a fair use exemption. Johnbod (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Forever Art (nice user name) and Johnbod (nice as well). There is an article, but I've never done an upload, so any help on that appreciated. The page is still obtaining over 100 hits a day, and an image would improve it. I'm surprised the site doesn't have images of all of Kahlo's paintings but their age is inside the copyright limit. Thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Have tried several times to upload the image retrieved here, but the "Upload Wizard" isn't giving me a working upload button. I seem to have provided all the data asked for. Can someone else please give it a try? It's a copyrighted image for use in the article Memory, the Heart, the 1937 painting by Frida Kahlo, to show readers the painting. I don't know what I'm missing in the upload process. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for art galleriesEdit

In my opinion, certainly not those of present notability guidelines, an art gallery demonstrates notability by by means of its exhibition schedule, but this exhibition schedule cannot be sourced to the art gallery because the art gallery is not independent of itself, therefore it is my opinion that reviews of art exhibitions validly contribute to the notability of art galleries. Recent AfDs have held that reviews of shows at art galleries do not contribute to notability. I believe the argument is that it is only the art that is referenced in such reviews and not the gallery. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Lee Gallery an art gallery with many reviews of exhibitions was deleted. I don't think art galleries try to call attention to themselves. Art galleries are concerned with showcasing art. Independent sources write about the art seen at a gallery. I think that should be the number one contributor to notability for art galleries. At present, I don't think notability guidelines exist specifically for art galleries. Do others agree that such guidelines should be formulated? And shouldn't such guidelines take into consideration the reviews by sources of exhibitions? Bus stop (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would argue that reviews of art exhibitions somehow contribute to the gallery's notability, but the question is to what extent the coverage is of the gallery itself. I looked through the sources in the deleted Simon Lee Gallery and the only coverage past mere mentions was [1][2][3] Is the second link planted PR? because it looks like it. The third link is an interview/self-published source. It is possible to write an article that does justice to the topic with that sourcing? Now, alternatively, would we have enough sourcing for the gallerist? czar 01:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Wrong! If we're talking about commercial galleries, not museums, all a gallery does is host exhibitions, and galleries that host notable exhibitions are notable. Otherwise all there is to say is how nice the toilets are. But the artists need to be notable, and the coverage not merely local. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Galleries that host exhibitions of notable artists that are reviewed; and discussed in a multiple of sources including magazines, newspapers and online publications are notable...Modernist (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 ? Good luck writing encyclopedia articles that do justice to the gallery as a topic when we don't have a preponderance of sources that cover the gallery's activities in depth. If a gallery's only sources are exhibition reviews that say little about the gallery's role, the resulting encyclopedia article will be anemic and reflect that lack of content about the gallery itself, no different from an article about a venue that says nothing about the venue. All this talk of rewriting notability guidelines to legislate a way out of not having secondary source coverage about the gallery itself, but what good would come of encyclopedia articles written this way, either for readers or for us? I see no way that an effort to except galleries from the general notability guideline—à la the sole bypass for professors—will garner wide community acceptance or end in anything but frustration for those who take up the quixotism. A better effort, I'd wager, would be to encourage more secondary source coverage about the topics you wish to see covered on Wikipedia. czar 11:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
czar—it is rarely the case that we have no information about an art gallery provided that gallery has an active exhibition schedule and its exhibitions are taken note of by sources, and of course that the sources are reliable. The problem here is not that the gallery is not notable but that the activity of an art gallery remains below the radar, so to speak. Reliable sources have scarce to report about these institutions because all of the work they do is behind the scenes. We generally do have some information on the gallery. Galleries are known for the kind of work they show and perhaps the artists they have "discovered". Generally owners and curators are known. Sometimes some shows receive an inordinate amount of interest and are written about in sources not only in the realm of reviews but in books as well. The problem is that at AfD this can be ignored in favor of a blind adherence to WP:INHERIT. It is strictly speaking not "inheritance" because of the gallery's instrumental role in bringing about the activity that transpires within the gallery. You might want to weigh in at Articles for deletion/Meessen De Clercq. Bus stop (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Ongoing commentary—A gallery is essentially an empty space that reflects the taste of its owners and operators. It provides ancillary services but these are rarely the sorts of things that are taken note of. Walls have to be painted. Lighting has to be provided. When sources review exhibitions, those sources are indirectly supporting the notability of the art gallery. That is because it was the taste of the owners and operators and the initiative of the owners and operators that set in motion the forces leading to the exhibitions that are being reviewed. Therefore a review of a show is supportive of the notability of the art gallery. Bus stop (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I think we ought to rewrite WP:ARTIST first, but if we are going to write a notability guideline for art galleries, I think that merely exhibiting notable artists does NOT make a gallery notable. There are plenty of galleries that work in the secondary market that sell art by eminently notable artists, but do not in any way contribute to what I'd call a critical discourse about the art they exhibit. I think that art galleries are poorly served with NCORP, because some of them are not like other businesses, and more like (free) museums. A gallery that is notable has noticeable impact (in the art world) and is, in some way, the subject of significant critical attention. For example, Betty Parsons, Ileana Sonnabend, Leo Castelli and Marian Goodman can be considered to have created a market for the artists they represent. Sometimes their efforts are reflected in museum collections. Some galleries produce exhibition catalogues that do get reviews, like for example Hauser Wirth & Schimmel, who produced Revolution in the Making, (I have a draft for an article about that exhibit here). A recent deletion discussion of a gallery at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexander_Friedmann-Hahn concluded that reviews of exhibitions do not by themselves establish notability if there is nothing about the gallery in those reviews. It may not have helped that the majority of artists that the gallery represented were themselves not notable. (See User_talk:DGG#curators_and_gallerists for a discussion). I have in the past compared some gallery rosters to see just how many of the artists galleries represent have Wikipedia articles. Notes are here. Vexations (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • So I learn from this that there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists, split off from the main VA one in 2016. Who knew? Not me, or I suspect many here - the other one continues to get many artists. These deletion debates now seem to have few editors one recognises as working in the field. We should all watchlist this. Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for art galleries, continuedEdit

Wider community input might not be a bad idea at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meessen De Clercq. Bus stop (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there any reason for this page?Edit

Is there a reason to believe that there are multiple forthcoming articles for Portrait of Madame Cézanne (disambiguation)? I am calling on the experts of this subject matter.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Well at least one anyway, yes. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The dab was whittled down from three entries to two, so WP:2DABS applies (read: a hatnote would be sufficient if/when there is a separate article for the non-Lichtenstein painting) czar 14:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
courtesy ping creator @Wikisaurus czar 14:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Of course the Lichtenstein would no longer be primary if we had the other article. Probably the Barnes Foundation Cezanne would be, though I'm sure C did others - ah yes, some 18 at least. Someone should do a stub, or a group article. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, 27 frigging portraits! Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Which the Lichtenstein article now actually links to ..... Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

June Women in Red focus on GLAMEdit

Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons.

New: WiR Loves Pride

New: Singers and Songwriters

New: Women in GLAM

New: Geofocus: Russia/USSR

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProjectEdit

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.


On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   08:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Invaluable now available through The Wikipedia Library!Edit

Free access to Invaluable is now available through the Library Card platform. Invaluable is a database of artists and auctions with more than 5 million entries, including 500,000 artists. You can sign up for free access now! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Charles LorinEdit

Is this person notable? Should the article be moved to mainspace? I see occasional mentions in him in various books, but not much in-depth. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

"Genevan" as a nationalityEdit

User:Sapphorain, a Genevan local blown in from French WP, has a bee in his bonnet that for most of the early modern period the Republic of Geneva was independent, although tied to the Old Swiss Confederacy, part of the Holy Roman Empire. He has been going around removing "Swiss" from bios of artists like Jean-Étienne Liotard and creating categories like Category:Artists from the Republic of Geneva and Category:Engravers from the Republic of Geneva under Category:People from the Republic of Geneva (1541–1815). Originally he removed these entirely from the Swiss biographical tree. ULAN and other sources just call these people "Swiss" and so should we. Whatever the technical legal situation in the 18th century, here as elsewhere we should use the equivalent modern nationalities for the main categories.

I've launched a CFD discussion to merge them back into the Swiss categories. This is potentially the thin end of a huge wedge - I think many of us know of the city-nationalists or others who go around removing "Italian" and replace it with "Venetian", but they do not remove Venetian painters from the Italian tree. Unfortunately the discussion at CFD has been ill-attended, and is not going well. Any comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_June_10#Category:Engravers_from_the_Republic_of_Geneva would be very welcome. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I have a feeling we're going to have this same conflict over-and-over again. Wasn't there something about 17th century Belgian artists recently? It all seems to hinge on differing views of the exact meaning of nationality is in the in Category:X by nationality subcategories. It frankly gives me the shivers to refer to as Belgian who was born before 1830 (there was no such country). But I can see that "Belgian artists" is really shorthand for "Artists who were born, or predominantly worked in, what is currently the territory of the Kingdom of Belgium". It is practical and helpful to our readers to do the categories in that way. Category:People by nationality makes it clear that we refer to regions or historical nations in addition to modern nations. To take a strict textualist approach to categorization defeats its purpose. It leads to categories that are technically correct, but mostly useless because our readers wouldn't use them, or even know where to look. For a reader, it should be possible to start at a parent category and navigate to the article about an artist from the region they're interested in, starting with what is currently a country, like Switzerland. If categorizing people as X from the Republic of Geneva prevents that, it's wrong, but I would think that Category:Swiss people > Swiss people by occupation > Swiss artists > Artists from the Republic of Geneva works just fine as long as Artists from the Republic of Geneva is a non-diffusing subcategory of Swiss artists. Vexations (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Generally I agree, but this is much worse, as Swiss was a valid & current term in English and the local languages all through this period. He has been removing the whole Swiss tree from his "Genevan" categories, as well as mention of "Swiss/Switzerland" from articles, and is adamant that 18th-century Genevans were not Swiss at all. In any I case I feel strongly that readers should not have to hunt through local (or chronological/style) sub-cats for professions, as they unfortunately have to do with Italian artists. As so often with category matters, the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
His solution appears to be insert fr:Catégorie:Artiste de la République de Genève into fr:Catégorie:Artiste par nationalité and Category:Artists from the Republic of Geneva into Category:Artists by nationality. If we agree to do this his way, then we we can't just do it to Republic of Geneva; we'd have to also agree to add every other other former sovereign state to every Category:X by nationality. Not just Category:Artists from the Republic of Geneva, but also Category:Scientists from the Republic of Geneva (nevermind, he already did that). The thing is, I do find that categories like Category:Yugoslav footballers and Category:Rhodesian archaeologists exist. I think that's impractical. I don't know if we can get consensus to limit Category:X by nationality to countries that currently exist. Unless we do get that consensus, I can't think of a reason to oppose his move based on established practice in categorization. One reason to oppose is that it is unreasonable difficult for people to find the "correct" country if we are not also adding the subject to the current country. If I'm looking for painters from what is now Switzerland, I should not be presumed to know when which parts of what is now Switzerland were not Swiss. That's just not reasonable. The strongest objection I can can think of would be that all the sources on Liotard say he was Swiss, not Genevan. We ought to go by what the sources say, and not by what we, from personal experience or original research, have decided is WP:TRUTH. Vexations (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's the line I am taking (EB 1911 calls Liotard just "French" btw, but what do they know!). I don't believe the current cat rules (in so far as there are any) allow people to be excluded from any current national category tree without a far better reason than there is here. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has removed this image of Picasso's Guernica from both the Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía page (where the painting resides) and from the Madrid page, the city location. It is still in copyright, although "given as a gift to the people of Spain". The fair use rationale would be that it defines the museum as a repository of art, and is its most important painting. As to the city, or even for use on the Spain page, the work is a national treasure, and is surely the most well-known and important painting in the city and the country. I don't know how to precede to enlarge its scope of use. Can someone, if you feel this is a case worth making, assist in obtaining the fair use permission from Commons the proper accreditation here? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The file would have to be loaded at Wikipedia using {{Non-free use rationale}}. Commons doesn't allow non-free images to be loaded there.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Have edited my request. I mean the Wikipedia file linked above, which is used on other Wikipedia pages and which I'd like to ask to be used on the museum, the Madrid, and possibly the Spain page. I'm new to the loading and permission edits. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. You want someone to help write up the non-free use rationale to add to the File:PicassoGuernica.jpg page on Wikipedia. I wouldn't know how to make the case for a painting to be used on an article about a city or country per non-free use rationale. Sorry, maybe someone else can make that connection.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Actually I'm asking how I'd make a request to include the image on the museum page, and then to try the Madrid and Spain discussion. The page I went to seems to be only for image deletions. Thanks for your quick responses above. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There is a discussion about Guernica's use and a NFCC violation at Talk:Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía. This is the museum where the painting is exhibited, and not including Guernica on it seems ridiculous, like removing the Mona Lisa from the Louvre page, the Sistine Chapel from the Vatican City page, or numerous other examples where an art museum can be defined by a single work. Does anyone know of a rationale for a NFCC by-pass that has been used on other museum pages? I'm asking this question to Hullaballoo as well, if they happen by here, as you seem to have an extensive knowledge of past placements of important images on Wikipedia articles. What would have to be changed in the rationale to make this proper use? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @Randy Kryn:, No changes in the rationale will suffice; the use is simply incompatible with NFC policy. Consensus and practice are quite clear. I've checked the top entries, for example, on List of most visited museums and List of largest art museums; the only nonfree files included in those articles are the museum's own logos -- no images of nonfree artworks from their collections. I'm sure exceptions slip in from time to time, but they're typically removed with little or no controversy. WP:NFC#UUI #6 is clear and rarely even disputed: "An [nonfree] image [is not acceptable] to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Thanks Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. It may make sense to hold a discussion to see if the definition of use of non-free images can be extended from only their own article to use in museum articles. This Guernica case may be the main argument to extend the definition, that it's non-use on the article of the museum, an Institution which it defines, shows the large hole in the policy. Coldcreation came up with that good and creative (although cold) alternative, which I hope you approve of as well. Thanks, I guess, for your good faith edits to keep other editors within the playing field. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Just watched the 10th and final episode of Picasso on Genius and have realized that the way to go forward, at least I believe and hope it makes sense to others, is to have a Guernica exception for non-free use of an image on a museum page "if that museum can only be represented in an encyclopedia if its article includes the image of a specific artwork". In this case, and possibly the only case which can be argued reasonably or successfully (hence the name Guernica exception), Guernica on the Museo Reina Sofía page. How could this exception be carried forward into the policy language, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, would you please consider it for awhile, maybe mull it over during a meal, and possibly co-sponsor this idea. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
          • If you want to create an exception/exemption to any Wikipedia policy, then the place to go about trying to do that would typically be on the talk page or the policy or at WP:VP/P, and it might require a WP:RFC. FWIW, although there are occasionally exemptions granted to WP:NFCC as explained in WP:NFEXMP, these tend to for maintenance pages, etc. and not for specific individual articles or files. Personally, I don't see how what you're requesting will gain any traction, but you can try if you want. You can also just try starting a discussion at WP:FFD instead to see if you can establish a consensus just for this particular non-free use. Just make sure, you avoid any problems with WP:CANVASS when notifying others of the discussion; for example, #Under attack is not the way to do such a thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
            • Thanks for the sound advice. Will answer further later. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Under attackEdit

The visual arts are now under a massive attack by the hunters (see above) and now these: [4] and [5]...Modernist (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This sort of mass deletion spree - and indeed the zealous insistence on the precise terms of WP:NFCC being met at all times, everywhere - reminds me of User:Betacommand. (I don't recall if Betacommand deleted fair use rationales before nominating files for deletion, but someone else may remember.) When was the last Betacommand sockpuppet caught? (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It does look like Betacommand to me; thank you for reminding me of his name; I had forgotten. Thank you for your insightful help...Modernist (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  ? Many of the rationales are correct. NFCC isn't hard to meet: the non-free image needs a textual reason for being on the page, especially when free use equivalents exist. A bunch of the nominations are pulled from the glut and galleries of Color Field, History of painting, and Western painting. It isn't useful to blanket reply "keep" on these with no effect to ascertain what works best for the encyclopedia, especially given that "free use" is one of our core tenets. Look at the other replies on these discussions for a clue to their eventual closure. czar 22:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? Color Field has no galleries - that's none....Those other 2 are important visual art articles having been targeted for years, by the way...Modernist (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Color Field has "glut" not "galleries", but that isn't the point. "Free use" is one of our core tenets and we don't do fair use unless warranted by a need in prose. Can't argue that those principles are being misapplied to these sets of images without first conceding the direction of the "massive attack". czar 13:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Every image under attack is covered by Fair Use Rationales...Modernist (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
    • As I've explained before, the Wikimedia foundation uses a stricter requirement than fair use. We want to support our content being reused, and non-free images do not support that, but there's a balance between that and visual clarity for topics. I know if you open up any history of painting book it will be flooded with examples (free and copyrighted with permission) but we simply can't replicate that under the WMF's target goal. --Masem (t) 13:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
    • You were advised by NeilN at User talk:NeilN#AN3 about Madrid about referring to this as an "attack". You're also just basically trying to argue WP:JUSTONE by implying that simply adding a non-free use rationale is all that is needed for a particular non-free use to be NFCC compliant. You seem to have just been just copying-and-pasting boilerplate non-free use rationales onto file pages with the only difference being the names of the articles where the files are being used. Then, when you someone points out to you that WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFCCE require that non-free use rationales be separate and specific for each non-free use, your response is basically "if you think the rationale is the problem, then fix it yourself". This kind of approach is not really in accordance with relevant policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I think the "attack" language may be justified by the sheer amount of items listed on one day. Editors would have had to spend hours preparing these entries, and if "attack" isn't the right word, "blitz" might do (minus the heavy-metal unless a keyboard is considered metal). Anyone wishing to answer-in-full each and every delete request would have to spend an equal amount if not more time. This doesn't seem fair to me, and language like "attack" (a good-faith attack?) is reasonable to describe the overall intent. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The arguments being deployed here seem to lead almost inevitably to articles on the history of art since, say, 1923, being almost entirely unillustrated. Further, if these arguments are upheld, then our biographical article on a leading artist such as Jasper Johns will not include any of the artworks for which he is justly famous (no Flag (painting), no Three Flags, no White Flag, no Map (painting)). Is that really what the fair use warriors want? To denude encyclopedic articles of any illustrations that support and add value to the text?

As things stand, we have the ridiculous situation that a ceramic tile copy of Guernica (Picasso) being used on the article about the museum that holds the orginal painting, its most prominent exhibit. Needless to say, the tile copy is a pale shadow of the painting, and is on a wall about 250 miles away from the museum in Madrid.

There is no adequate replacement for a unique, original artwork. We use a low-resolution, thumbnail image to respect the copyright holder's rights, and only use it where justified by encyclopedia concerns and relevant to the article concerned, with a rationale explaining why. Even when images meet all of the requirements of the fair use policy, they are liable to be removed because someone says they fail to navigate through a tick-box laundry list of guidelines, applied in an automatic, knee-jerk fashion, defying all common sense.

The guidelines themselves say they are not exhaustive or determinative, and need to be applied with judgement on a case by case basis according to the spirit of the policy and not its exact words. Images "illustrative of a particular technique or school" are expressly allowed. That surely applies to an article on the history of art or a biography too. (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

NFC would allow:
  • The image of a notable piece of art on a standalone page about that piece of art.
  • A "few" examples of art from a notable artist as examples of their art. What a "few" is depends: if the artist had only one style they stuck to, then only one or two examples would be reasonable. On the other hand, if we had someone like Picasso with several notable periods, or even different mediums, an example from each would be fair.
  • A "few" examples to describe a school of art or technique of art. Again, what a "few" is depends: if it was a short-lived period, probably only one or two. If it was a period that had several iterations, an example from each iteration would be reasonable.
Yes, unfortunately the WMF's stance on non-free goes against the visual and audio arts, so we do have a bit more fairer allowances, but we can't allow the same amount of non-free art that one would normally find in a work that is only bound by fair use. We can provide external links to galleries of art for readers to find more as needed. --Masem (t) 17:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • As you know this argument has been going on for nearly 15 years; the visual works that have been used thus far has been relatively modest; certainly using just a few images to represent decades of art history is useful, educational and valuable. It increases this encyclopedia's credibility. As you know this discussion has been going on since 2006 or before. The few images that we use should be protected...Modernist (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Except that the argument is settled. We have a sitewide policy, which you can protest if you want, but until you change it, we have a party line on how to handle handfuls of fair use images dumped on a page with no textual commentary. czar 16:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Once again that is your opinion; and to be sure these articles are anything but handfuls of contemporary art dumped onto a page without textual commentary; learn the subject; understand just what is being destroyed...Modernist (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Total Nonsense, let me repeat what you clearly don't understand - Visual Art needs to be seen - Frankly there are indeed only a limited amount of contemporary images to work with. Consequently those images are critically important and should all be kept and used in the few articles that we have...Modernist (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. The role of images in art education is different than the role of images in many other usages. Images are the subject matter in articles on visual art. The commentary is of secondary importance. It is seeing the work, or at least a reproduction of a work of art, that is the primary educational tool and aim. Art education is primarily a familiarization with with those works of visual art that various authorities have deemed important or serious or noteworthy. The entire commentary provided by such authorities is a defense of the choices they make in choosing certain works of art to be "special". But educationally it is not the commentary that primarily matters but rather the seeing of the conclusions of their commentary. We are waging an ass-backwards effort if we only provide the commentary and neglect to include the best-quality examples of the images of the works of art. This is so fundamental that it can be overlooked. The restricting of our usage to only freely available images often represents a distinctly second-rate choice if we are trying to convey to the reader a good sense of the item being written about. The cliché of the art-educational classroom setting is of dimmed lighting and projected images. I think this suggests the centrality of images to the subject matter of the sorts of articles under discussion. Bus stop (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
There is no attempt to prevent having images alongside commentary, but by virtual of the nature of WP being written in summary style, and that the area of visual arts generally gets dissected along the lines of school/style and of geographic region/history, there's only a few logical places that that commentary can fall: an article about the painting itself, or if that doesn't exist, the painter, the specific school, and the specific geographic region, and in the case of this last two, only if the work is a well-established piece that belongs to that skill. The problem with how the visual art articles are set up is that commentary is reproduced unnecessarily in the broader school/styles or geographic regions so that the images are being repeated unnecessarily to go along with it. If you are going to write articles like History of Painting as a summary style (rather that split up into segments), then you are necessarily going to have to cut down on image use - free and non-free - in the summary-level articles, as these should be overviews and not comprehensive as they are now. That's what's causing the problem with non-free images. I can understand that there might be a few cases - on the order of a dozen - of reasonable necessary examples that will filter up and be reused as well-recognized, key examples that support the summary style as to keep a balance on the page, but it's far less than what this project uses currently. --Masem (t) 14:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I would think the article History of painting would be as comprehensive as possible. The use of these images, essential to such a page and to the literal history of painting, seems fine and actually necessary to give our readers the sense-of-subject that they expect to find. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • We have cut down image use extensively although those images used are crucial in order to be able to explain visually and educate our readers properly regarding these complex diversities in the visual arts...Modernist (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
WP does not encourage writing at a deeply comprehensive styles at multiple topic levels; that's the whole point of summary style. For that reason, the top level articles like History of Painting should not have significant commentary on any one work, a detail better left to more specific articles. --Masem (t) 14:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


  • Images speak louder than a thousand words. Coldcreation (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Loudness is not one of Wikipedia's goals. A narrative focused on loudness is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
      • "Loudness is not one of Wikipedia's goals." Articulateness is. The phrase "Images speak louder than a thousand words" involves a figurative use of the word "loud". We already have "contextual significance". In the context of visual art, images have significance. The images increase the readers' understanding. To say that their omission would be detrimental is an immeasurable understatement. Please stop suggesting that anyone is an "idiot". Coverage of visual art takes place at this project. Policy already exists to allow this project to cover visual arts with the inclusion of images of representative works of art. Bus stop (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
        • No, the phrase "Images speak louder than a thousand words" is just a clumsy misquotation that gets only about two dozen unduplicated Ghits. I assume the OP meant to say something like "a picture is worth a thousand words", but conflated it with "actions speak louder than words". It's ironic that this inarticulate mashup is supposedly presnted as supporting the value of the articulate. And you also seem unable or unwilling to recognize a figurative use of some of Shakespeare's most articulate writing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
          • Apparently you are not aware of or you don't appreciate the role of images in providing readers with information about visual art. Bus stop (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Trying to justify the non-free content use of any file by arguing WP:THOUSANDWORDS is usually not going to get you very far. As stated by others above, the current policy cannot be changed through the discussion of any one single image. If you feel the policy should changed to allow a more broadly-construed non-free contact use that you and some others seem to be advocating, then you (or they) should propose such a thing at WT:NFCC or at WP:VP/P. Perhaps you will be able to establish a consensus to change the policy in such a way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
      • The contextual significance of the non-free content under attack is indisputable. The images are used only because their presence significantly increases the readers' understanding of the articles within which they are present. Their omission would be detrimental to that understanding. As stated above, there are only a limited number of these images available, and their usage at low resolution is perfectly justified and in accord with WP:NFCCP. That is why the images are included in the respective articles, notwithstanding uncompromising interpretations of Wikipedia non-free policy. Coldcreation (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
        • A picture is worth a thousand words is not easy to misinterpret, and yet Hullaballoo has. Rather than edit-warring, deleting, arguing, and wasting everyone's time, just add a sourced commentary in the article, improve rationales. Be constructive per WP:NFCCEG. Support Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content, and support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia. These paintings, all fundamental in the history of art, need to be seen. Coldcreation (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you are not aware of or you don't appreciate the role of images in providing readers with information about visual art.

These types of comments would seem to align with a section titled "Under attack", but I'm otherwise baffled at the lack of policy awareness from this WikiProject. If you disagree with the non-free content policy, take it up with a wider audience in a wider forum, such as the policy's talk page or the Village Pump, as has already been mentioned above. This WikiProject page is the wrong forum for that discussion. It's quite clear that the interloping image copyright regulars, who have quite succinctly re-explained the community consensus (policy), do not have an audience here, which indicates a whole host of problems to be resolved outside the scope of this talk page. czar 16:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem is not a disagreement with or a lack of awareness of non-free content policy, it is the interpretation of such. Coldcreation (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
You refer to "the lack of policy awareness from this WikiProject". That is "WikiProject Visual arts". In policy I find a reference to "contextual significance" reading "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." In the visual arts the images are exceptionally important and policy allows for the use of images "if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Bus stop (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Reciting the policy language is not communicative at this point. Please explain, to cite just one of the current disputes, how the reader'sw understanding of that fact that a painting has been stolen is detrimentally affected, in a material way, by an absence of its image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
The curious reader may be interested to see what sort of artwork was stolen for reasons unrelated to any scholarly commentary that may predate the theft. Isn't the instance of the inclusion of the image of a stolen artwork slightly outside of the general reasons we are having this discussion? Bus stop (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
The phrase "A picture is worth a thousand words" when talking at the level of discussing a specific piece of art, an artist, or a specific school. It helps us understand at that highly detailed level what the art world saw with that visual work, some detail which simply can't be put into words. So images at that level make a lot of sense. But at the level of "History of Painting" or the broader school/history articles, that "thousand words" doesn't apply. You're just at that point looking to provide a few relevant examples to help guide the reader to know the broad distinctions between schools/periods. Thus these high level articles should not be burdened with excessive amounts of non-free media. --Masem (t) 16:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • And they aren't. There are really only a few images available and those that are being used convey visuals of the schools/periods and important movements discussed. The articles cover more than a century of art and the images are in compliance while interpretation does seem to be the problem...Modernist (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • That's just silly. There may be a relatively tiny number of relevant images whose use is limited to protect their commercial value, but almost every artwork is available. What you're saying is that your own view of art is so narrow and constricted that you can use only a narrow set of images, over and over and over. That you cannot discuss art based on the full sweep of the field, but only on your own constricted knowledge base, reflects a crippling mandarinism that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's encyclopedic purpose. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This is plain nonsense when it comes to the art of recent decades. With 70 years after death the basic copyright period, it stands to reason that the vast majority of art from the last 70-90+ years is in copyright, except for the odd piece where government work-for hire, publicly-exhibited art in some countries and a very few images released by the copyright-holders can be used. You can't illustrate Color Field with a Rembrandt. Please don't be an idiot. Johnbod (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • That's not what anyone is saying. Color field clearly is going to have to rely on artwork that is copyrighted, since was only started in the 1940, so a few examples of that style is reasonable. Fourteen (what is currently there) is not. The problem is that the visual arts project has written these articles with so much overlap in detailed form, against what WP:SS recommends. Or, another way to put this: If Wikipedia were a printed book, with no size limits, you'd only be using any given image once and only once in that. We are clearly not written like a book, but covering the same material, so the summary articles should be far less detailed. By necessity, they will repeat some information - and some images - but not as much text or images as the bulk of these articles currently have. WP cannot accomodate the coverage of visual arts in the same fashion that printed books can, due to its digital, bite-size nature, and its non-free content policy. There's ways to still use all those images on articles about the images themselves or likely for the artists if the images aren't notable, but can't all can't filter up to the top level articles as is presently being done. --Masem (t) 23:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC]
The plain truth is that there are very few works of contemporary art from the 1930s to the present in the public domain. 14 images are barely enough to illustrate an article as complex as colorfield painting. The history begins with Matisse, and runs through abstract expressionism - (one aspect) - through the art of the '60s, to the present day. With the exception of an artist like Matisse all of the other important artists work - From Rothko and Newman to Stella, Frankenthaler and others are under copyright. I know the field of art and art history very well and contemporary art needs to be seen and images need to remain in those few articles in which they appear...Modernist (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Again, no one said you must only use free images to illustrate. A few non-free examples is completely fine on an article like Color Field. The problem is that you can't use anywhere close to 14 and be compliant with the WMF's non-free image policy, because that's simply not "minimal use". You have at least 40 artists that have done color field art, and spot checks show each of them have at least one example of their color field work, so if a reader wants to see more examples, they can follow that. (I would also suggest making a Category:Color field paintings (or similar) that you can also point readers to.) You simply cannot overload these pages with examples of non-free paintings under the claim they all must be seen. All that is needed to understand the concept of color field are about 2 or 3 images, and if I need to learn more, following the links to the artists or specific examples. That's a 100% required approach to stay compliant with the WMF. --Masem (t) 02:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
"All that is needed to understand the concept of color field are about 2 or 3 images" - reallly? Clever you. A very personal and subjective judgement, which few here will agree with. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
From a standpoint of trying to maintain a free content work, yes, 2-3 image + links to 40+ artists in the field is considered sufficient. We are not here to dabble in art appreciation, but to document the history of visual works, which needs far less emphasis on emphathic elements and more on factual ones. --Masem (t) 13:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
You are misstating art education as "art appreciation". No one has to like a work of art. But it is depicted in an image for the educational value that the image provides. It is familiarity with the general visual outline of a reference point in art history that matters. Bus stop (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Also to stress: WP is not meant to be the end-all , be-all, last stop for someone researching art topics. We're supposed to be a summary and direct readers to more detailed works. For that reason, we shouldn't be trying to document with so many images in these articles, as that doesn't serve our purpose as a summary work. --Masem (t) 02:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • At the same time we are presenting scholarly articles that actually bring information to the table. In the article there is historical background with the paintings of Matisse, I would have liked to also include a work by Miro, but as you mentioned we cannot include everything. However the images that are included are all important to the topic...Modernist (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    • That's hardly accurate. "Scholarly articles" are properly referenced, and the text is checked against the references to assure that is is properly supported.You, however, battle reflexively in support of unsourced text, leading to your insistence, for example, that critic Robert Coates had "coined" a term first used decades earlier, or more recently your restoring the absurd and unsourced assertion that Jackson Pollock had tried to assassinate Leon Trotsky. I am not making this up [6] The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm getting sick and tired of your stupid attacks. You clearly don't understand this subject and appear to have some kind of vendetta against me and this subject. That nonsense regarding Pollock - was a total misread on your part. You obviously don't have a clue. The paragraph said that Pollock studied with Siqueiros who later attempted to assassinate Trotsky; Siqueiros not Pollock....Modernist (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure Wikipedia articles are intended to be scholarly articles per se. For sure, there are some extremely well-written articles which might seem comparable or even better in terms of quality, but basically Wikipedia article content is only intended to reflect with reliable sources are saying about something; it's not intended to present new information or interpretations. (Wikipedia doesn't even consider it's own articles to be reliable sources for any purpose.) So, if a reliable source is discussing a particular painting and content related to that discussion can be added to an article, then there might be a strong context for using a non-free image of the painting in the article. Simply saying that the image cannot properly be described in words, so it therefore needs to be seen seems like a type of image WP:OR to me. There are things about a painting, such as how it illustrates a certain style or technique, etc., which can be described and which are often described in words by professional art critics, etc. in books, periodicals, and other places where art is critically discussed. Just mentioning an image by name and wanting the reader to see it for that reason alone without any real discussion of a painting itself means that there's no real loss in understanding to the reader if the image is omitted. Masem's point about WP:SS is, I think, a good one. A stand-alone article about a painting is where most of the detailed discussion of the painting seems appropriate and therefore where non-free use seems to be the most acceptable per current policy. However, in other articles, the connection between image and specific article content might not be as strong which means non-free use is going to be much harder to justify and require something more than simply wanting the reader to see it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
The first and foremost fact is that reliable sources are saying something about for instance a painting. Exactly what they are saying is of secondary importance. And revaluations are not at all uncommon. Commentary by good-quality sources are constantly updating earlier pronouncements about the significance of works of art, art movements, and artists. They rise and fall in the assessments of successive generations of art commentators. But the one constant is the work of art itself. It can be seen in an approximation in an image. It doesn't matter so much what is being said about it as much as it matters that serious commentators on art are talking about it. It is the familiarity with the image that is of paramount importance, along with whatever "facts" can be retained by the normal mind about that image, especially facts such as name of artist, name of art movement, year made, medium, materials, dimensions, location. These are facts that tend to remain constant. Art history revisits certain works. Certain works of art are reference points. The reader needs to be familiar with the reference points. It will never be the case that Malevich's White on White will be neglected. It is a reference point. None of the editors in this discussion are putting images in articles that are not reference points in art history. In every instance these are important works of art. Not everyone is interested in art. But an absence of interest in the discipline should not be a reason to endeavor to dismantle the articles. Bus stop (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
When there are standalone articles on specific paintings, there is no issue in using the sources that are trying to say something about the paintings on that article about the painting. That's fine. no one is trying to stop that. But you can't use the same logic when describing the history or concept of a specific school or area of painting. The message cannot be about the value of the painting, so those sources shouldn't be reused for that type of message. Your "reference points" concept - what I'd consider example works - is reason to justify a few core examples on this broader areas, but between how WP is set up and the WMF's stance on non-free, you simply can't show every reference point that is being done right now. You can blue-link to articles on the individual paintings, have lists of paintings and painters off the article, and the like, but we cannot allow the number of non-free examples being currently used on many pages. --Masem (t) 13:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
No one is trying to show every reference point. Your personal opinion that "we cannot allow the number of non-free examples being currently used on many pages" is not in accord with WP:NFCCEG. The small number of images currently used are perfectly inline with WP:NFCCEG. Be constructive. Support Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content, and support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia. Coldcreation (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep in mind, most of the images in questions have a single article devoted to them, no one is speaking of stripping away those articles. It's the multiple reuse of many many images that is against the free-content goal and non-free content policy of WP. There is no need for 14 images on the Color Field page given all 14 have their own page or are a fair example of the artist's work on the artist's page. The goal of examples of images on Color Field should be to show that it is abstract art with big and bold fields of solid color, which is easily done with about 2-3 images. If I need more, I can follow blue links or external links. --Masem (t) 14:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
And according to that Gene Davis, Morris Louis, Frank Stella, Helen Frankenthaler weren't color field artists - although according to Ken Noland - when he and Morris Louis visited Helen Frankenthaler's studio in 1953 at the urging of Clement Greenberg and saw her painting Mountains and Sea the entire world changed. The images are important...Modernist (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
"you simply can't show every reference point" No one argues for the inclusion of every reference point. You say "that is being done right now." No, it is not. It is a matter of judgement as to how many images of artworks result in an appropriate degree of familiarity with the subject of the article. I don't think that the responsible editors here are including any more images than the minimum number necessary to familiarize the reader with the subject of the article. It would be an anemic article that talked about artworks or artists or art movements that did not illustrate visual approximations of the artworks themselves. The text is not super-duper important relative to the images. New text will be written about the artworks in succeeding years, by good-quality sources, but the image of the artwork will remain relatively constant. Bus stop (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
In an article like Color field which is more about the style, history, and noted artists, the text is more important than the image. A few are certainly needed to support what the style is, but this article is not written to approach "art appreciation" but to factually understand how the movement developed and who was involved. No images are required for that type of content, outside of a few reasonable examples to show what the style is. --Masem (t) 17:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
this article is not written to approach "art appreciation" but to factually understand how the movement developed and who was involved The artworks come first. The commentators explain the interconnectedness of art movements and their component artworks. In a very real sense, commentators are as likely to be incorrect as they are likely to be correct. These are explanations but this is not science by any stretch of the imagination. What we know is that certain artworks serve as "reference points" in the commentary of many well-respected commentators on art. But the commentators are not "right" in the sense that this has been proven to be the case. Therefore the artworks are the only abiding "facts". I think this consideration bolsters the case for why they need to be seen. Bus stop (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
An article like Color Field is primarily an objective narrative, detailing the history of the movement and those that inspired/evolved it. It has very little subjective material, enough to explain the relative importance of that movement that can't be captured by fact, but not anything specific on any one single art piece. As such, it is not an "art appreciation" narrative, and thus does not require that many images; only a few to support the facts within the content of our NFC policy. In contrast, a standalone article on a specific piece of art is going to be far more subjective content to explain the reason that art piece is important, and that's where art appreciation comes into play, fully justifying the image. --Masem (t) 17:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
As has often been apparent, you have the wierdest ideas about the encyclopaedic coverage of art. There is no point to a factual narrative about the history of the movement without an understanding of the sort of art it produced, and that can hardly be achieved by text alone. As with any movement, some discussion of specific works is the best way to achieve this, and invariably used (often over-used) by textbooks and other encyclopaedic-type works. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I never said you can't use a few examples, but due to our non-free policy to meet the WMF's requirements for Wikipedia being a free content work, these should be reduced to a minimum set that is needed to gain sufficient understanding school, with the knowledge that we have several detailed articles on specific paintings and artists in that school. If we were a textbook or printed, all that would be one big section with no need to repeat images. WP is broken into bite size pieces, so some repetition is allowed, but nowhere as much as currently used in several articles. --Masem (t) 15:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Masem—Color Field is a particularly diverse grouping of paintings. It is a grouping of paintings that almost requires the inclusion of many images to represent the content of that grouping of paintings. It is not Wikipedia editors that are positing that a fairly diverse group of paintings fall under one umbrella term. Though I lack the authority to say this I think substantial support in sources is found for the congregation of what seems to me to be a fairly diverse group of paintings under the style "color field". So, I ask you—how can a reader recognize the content of "color field" without a fair number of examples? Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
On WP, with the NFC policy, the solution is to provide blue-links to articles where more examples can be found. We can't just plaster lots of non-free images in one article or massively reuse them. --Masem (t) 19:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

New Retitle "Yale Student Abortion Art Controversy" discussionEdit

If you have an opinion, discussion at Talk:Yale_student_abortion_art_controversy#Title_change_still_called_for.

Has been going on, in various forms, since the middle of May. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

A link to a DAB pageEdit

According to the article on Rotem Reshef, 'The “Deep” pools are a "punctum" in the painting, they collect the different shades of paint, and can also be seen as their source of origin'. Punctum is a DAB page with no obviously relevant article. Can anyone help solve this puzzle? Narky Blert (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

That sentence is unsourced analysis so I'd just remove it. czar 15:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Why remove it? Why not just remove the internal linkage? Bus stop (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 ? Because verifiability is the basis of the encyclopedia, all analytic claims require reliable sources. czar 20:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Does it follow that you wish to remove all analytic claims in the section in which the reference to "punctum" is found, that being the section called Bodies of work and exhibitions? Similar claims are made in relation to other works found in that section. This question only arose because the word punctum links to a disambiguation page. Bus stop (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, source analytic claims to reliable, secondary sources or remove them. czar 13:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I made this edit and this edit. Referring just to the paragraph called "Deep", is it still unsatisfactory? Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
It's all about this, which has been applied to paintings as here - I'll let you judge how successfully. Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Cutting to the chase. That link to a DAB page is useless to readers. One way or another, it needs to be fixed.
As a reader, I have no idea at all what 'punctum' in that quote is supposed to mean. I am tempted to call it pretentious waffle (AKA BS). Narky Blert (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
In the Rotem Reshef article, without further explanation, the use of the word "punctum" is saying very little. The word "punctum" is found in the Roland Barthes article. It could be linked to that article but such linkage could be incorrect. I would just leave it as an unlinked and unfortunately unclear term. Bus stop (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I see that punctum in Rotem Reshef still links to a DAB page. That is less than satisfactory. Readers who click on that link will still be left unencylopedially confused and baffled.
This problem needs to be not sidestepped but solved, to help our readers. The current link to the DAB page is worse than useless. Narky Blert (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I've made this edit. Bus stop (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The source of the statement appears to be Reshef herself. On, where she writes: "Pools of diluted paint gather in layers on top of each other, creating a punctum to the painting’s composition, a pond or even an eye that looks back at the viewer". That composition/punctum duality doesn't sound like Barthes' studium/punctum to me. I think that they mean focal point or center of interest. I'd suggest that we clarify that this is the artist speaking about the work, not an independent critic or art historian. I don't know if secondary sources for the descriptions of each of the series exist. I tried, but couldn't find anything. Vexations (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
It is quite possible that the artist spoke with a meaning known only to themselves. bd2412 T 22:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The artist is using the word in its straightforward dictionary definition. I've made this edit. Bus stop (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:WikiProject History of photographyEdit

 Template:WikiProject History of photography has been nominated for merging with Template:WikiProject Photography. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Qono (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead image poll, after battles with sockpuppetsEdit

here - comments welcome. Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Visual arts".