Open main menu

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:


Painting nameEdit

Please, someone can help me to find the name of this painting from Case Closed: Sunset beach woman. Thank you. -- (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Someone can help me? -- (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

1 leftEdit

Given Randy Kryn's bang up job on Template:Wassily Kandinsky, which I just noticed today and which inspired me to produce Template:Aubrey Beardsley, WP:WPVA has only one WP:VA level 4 or higher biography without a biographical template according to my 2017 status update. Gerhard Richter needs some attention.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Nice work on Beardsley. Creating templates for some of these well-known artists is complicated by not having enough material to link. Richter is a good example, and I haven't looked closely but articles on his work seem few. I did a Berthe Morisot template yesterday and made the required five article links for template-creation (unofficial but used at the deletion pages). Even Alfred Sisley is underrepresented by few articles on artworks. But maybe kind-of-empty templates will be filled in time ("build it and they will come"), when new art historians and art appreciation students "discover" Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
The only articles on Richter's works that I am aware of are 18. Oktober 1977, 48 Portraits, Richter window [de; fr; ru], Wand (Wall), Abstraktes Bild (809-1), Domplatz, Mailand [de]. Vexations (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Vexations for some borderline template subjects, we get to a threshold number of links with articles other than works such as family members, Institutions named after him, institutions he created, his legacy in the media and such. Does the list get any longer with any of these subjects.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Randy Kryn if you are looking for subjects, I would go through the WP:VA list. They have begun expanding to a level 5. There should be lots of fairly important artists without templates. It would be interesting if someone went through Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers and determined a list of people still in need of templates like I did 21 months ago before level 5 existed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps this list of works by Gerhard Richter is helpful? Vexations (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Vexations, From that list, it seems that someone should be able to cobble together a group of four subjects worth translating into english. You seem to be quite a Richter fan. I invite you to create enough links to support him having his own template. He stands out in a bad way as the only level 4 WP:VA artist without a biographical template.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I will have another look at the German articles. I could probably do the translations into English, and I am well-acquainted with his work. Vexations (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger I translated de:48 Portraits to 48_Portraits and de:Domplatz, Mailand to Cathedral Square, Milan. Suggestions for improvement (more than) welcome. Thanks, Vexations (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Translations are now complete, and there is a artist navigational box for {{Gerhard Richter}} Vexations (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Tate outsources artist biographies on its website to WikipediaEdit

Per, the Tate is “working on a partnership with Wikipedia to ensure the biographies for artists in our collection are as accurate as possible”. Does anyone here know anything about that initiative? Vexations (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The Tate replaced most of their on-line biographies with WP articles in, as I recall, December 2016. Overnight it created a mass of circular references in WP articles which had to be removed and also meant the loss of a large number of good sources. I have no idea who they spoke to at WP. At the time the Tate were inviting feedback on the change but when I contacted them the only response I got was a 'thank-you for your comments'. There was a, very, small discussion about the change on this talk page at the time.14GTR (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I've not heard of anything like that implies. There were 2 editathons at Tate Britain in 2016 organized with Wikimedia UK, one on "Queer British Art at Tate Britain" (coinciding with an exhibition) & the other one of the Art & Feminism series. Doing a search on the WMUK site, there's talk of meetings in 2009 but otherwise not much at all. Mind you, they don't put stuff online the way they used to. I thought Tate Modern weren't very keen to engage with wp when I was involved with that sort of thing a few years ago, & spoke to senior people at conferences. User:RexxS? Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
The very small discussion was here, I think: Lucian Freud, a vital article, contains a reference to, which is Wikipedia's text. I have not yet dealt with that one. Other articles affected were John Skeaping, Martin Froy, Denis Masi, Alexander Runciman, Elizabeth Stuart-Wortley, Baroness Wharncliffe, Bhupen Khakhar, Errol Sawyer, John Bellany, Anthony Gross- i have removed the circular references where circular refs were used to cite biographical facts, where the tate website was used to cite that a work is in their collection, I have left them. Bendor Grosvenor's article discussing the change is here. Vexations (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I've transcluded the complete "very small discussion" below, from the archives. Interesting to see how for a few artists such as Francis Bacon they have tabs for both their in-house bio and the Wikipedia bio. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Last week the Tate revamped its website. Among the many changes that have been introduced, they have replaced the artist biographies pages on the site with the first paragraph of the artists' Wikipedia page. Obviously, they are fully entitled to do so but this has created a lot of circular references as many of the WP articles use the artists' Tate biography page as a reference. The biographies for artists without a Wikipedia page have also been deleted, but without any replacement. The Tate are currently inviting comments and feedback on the redesign of the site.14GTR (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

You'd think that might make them less opposed to releasing any free images, but I expect not.... Thanks for the tip. What they say is "For around 100 artists Tate has authored biographies, but for the other artists there was little information to show here. We are now augmenting the Tate authored biography by showing the Wikipedia entry on" Certainly you get both for Francis Bacon. But I can't see any bio for eg John Opie (T Britain), who certainly has a WP one. Maybe they haven't finished. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Tate's mistake is believing that "constantly updated" equals "constantly improved". GeeBee60 (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Are there any current contacts with the Tate to encourage their curators to contribute to Wikipedia some of the time they otherwise would have put into their own biography pages? It would be good to have a GLAM partnership or Wikimedian in residence. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
The Museum of Modern Art simply adds links to wikipedia articles. When clicked on, a portion of the lead is shown, with the option to read further, then links to wikipedia. See e.g., Picasso, MoMA. This avoids circular links, but they have removed valuable references. Coldcreation (talk) 07:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Something may be said about this at the "Tate Late" event at Tate Britain this evening.[1]: (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, Jesus! Daria's such an expert on how WP works. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Is this part of the strategic development of Wikimedia UK activity plan then? User:Daria Cybulska (WMUK), can you please clarify? --Vexations (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
She last made an edit in 2015, so I'd email her at WMUK if you want an answer. Johnbod (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
No, nothing said about this. Just how wonderful it is when institutions provide licence-free images to us, so we can make them available for anyone to reuse. She mentioned a Delft image from the Rijksmuseum, reused in an image that looks like a contact lens advert, discussed further here: [2][3][4][5] That is nothing to do with Wikipedia/Wikimedia as far as I can see.
Places like the Met are releasing a lot of of free images; pity the UK collections are not doing so as much. The moral quid pro quo for the Tate - and some other institutions - relying on our biographical or other textual content must be letting us have good free images. But nothing said about that either.
And the best example of Wikimedia's added value is ... Commons:Category:Cats acting as humans in art. Well done us. (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Link to the Signpost mention of the Tate issue: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-10-01/In the media (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Reversions at Old MasterEdit

Comments invited at Talk:Old_Master#Recent_edits. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Red links in NavboxesEdit

I think red links in these should be formally allowed in VAMOS for two reasons;

  • It gives a fuller impression of the artist's output, how prolific he/she was, or with older artist's, the number of attributed surviving works (esp. important with for eg van Eyck)
  • It encourages new articles; there is a basic physiological motive in wiki editors to turn red links blue. I realise this is for better or worse as we still have a lot more article creation than article development, and I dread micro stubs.

I have been frustrated a number of times re this, particularly with Ingres. Ceoil (talk) 07:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I suppose this is in reference to [6] and [7]? I had the impression that it was fairly common for to have redlinks. --Vexations (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I took a look at navigation templates in Category:Artist (painter) navigational boxes that have redlinks and found:
Vexations (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Some red-links are allowed per guidelines, maybe more than a few are excessive and disruptive to the template, but two or three seem fine. Over that many if not all should probably be removed. The Francis Bacon template, for example, is such an overabundance of red that editors may feel that writing one of the pages will make little difference to the overall impression of the template-map. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Randy, your last point makes a lot of sense and have felt that way often frankly, there and with a few others. Ceoil (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The Bacon template with 40+ red links looks ridiculous. Surely there's a better place to store the red links to encourage creation. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Bit rich coming from the editor that created a bunch of micro stubs and redirects there, and then went to AN/I over them Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
If you want to see something even more ridiculous, {{Tony_Smith}} has 111 redlinks. Vexations (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Good grief. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to apologize for creating redirects of notable topics, so let it go already. Back to the topic being discussed, I see these navigation templates as ways to aid movement between related articles, not to illustrate the size of an artist's output using nonexistent entries. I don't seem to be alone in my thinking here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, if you are going to denegrate the FB templete, its worth mentioning the clutter you created [8] Ceoil (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, a few - maybe up to 4, and not more than say 5% of the total. Johnbod (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't be in favour of arbritrary restrictions on numbers of redlinks but, yes, a navbox is there primarily to navigate between articles, so if the great majority of links are red, it's too early to create a navbox. Sionk (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Guidelines are pretty clear on why we don't allow lots of redlinks:

    Red links and redirects should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles. Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first.

    If you have a source that shows a proposed navbox set as well-defined and complete, good. But if the set is an artist's "selected works" and there is no definition to the set's completeness, there is no case for navbox redlinks. The navbox is meant to link between existing articles, not to house a to-do list. czar 20:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    ok, all this makes sense. I think I'll limit myself to the "where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result" notions, ie one or two for an artist's bio where one of their styles (eg male portraits) doesn't have a representing article. Ceoil (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Flickr uploadEdit

La Chiffonnière Anyone know how to do this? Sorry to use the project page to ask question. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


What can we do about the proliferation of stubs about paintings? There is so much activity of minimal value occurring on articles about art objects now that it's disconcerting. It's not just one editor. I don't know if it's always been this way. Does anyone else find it problematic? Not a lot can be written about many art objects by 'notable' artists, leaving the sense that the material would be better off included in the artist's biography, amalgamated into a holistic "Paintings by X" article (or annotated list), etc. All of this is, of course, more work than plopping a stub in.

New stubs on a rolling basis can be seen here: User:AlexNewArtBot/PaintingSearchResult. Nothing guarantees they're stubs, but they are. Outriggr (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Not a new problem, but the pace of microstub creation has increased. It has to be a disappointing experience for a reader who is for instance exploring the titles in the {{Henri_Matisse}} template to click on a link and be greeted with this or this. Fully 24 of the works listed in that template are five sentences or less, and in most cases have languished in that state for a decade or longer. Merging some of these into a list on the model of List of paintings by Édouard Manet would be an improvement I think. Ewulp (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Attilios used to be one of the worst, but currently User:SamHolt6 has been working his way through the Metropolitam MA catalogue with 3-liners like Broken Eggs (Metropolitan Museum of Art), and User:DilletantiAnonymous is working his way through the Museo di Capodimonte with stuff like Adoration of the Shepherds (Santafede). I wish he'd learn to format refs. Ten years ago, with really major paintings, there was the reasonable hope that someone would come along and expand them later, but that hardly washes now. The WP preference for articles on specific things, of whatever sort, over topics, is something I've railed against for years - see links on my talk page. But they are far more easily created, & many are motivated by "articles created", I suppose. Relevant (but very long) discussion now on at User_talk:Iridescent#Sidetrack_within_a_sidetrack_on_readability_scoring. I've been mainly writing about pottery lately, & one of the nice things is that it naturally falls into topics, not objects. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
How about Seated Nude (1916) and Seated Nude (1917), one sentence. The edit summary is long than the article. Coldcreation (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Contrary to other opinions, I do not take issues with the proliferation (in this case, I am a self-admitted proliferator) of art stubs, though my views are colored by my work with WP:GLAM. The stub articles I produce by and large relay the work's medium, creator, date of creation, current location, etc, supplemented by three or more sentences. They show an image (Courtesy of the Met/GLAM) and are sourced to the Met's entry on the work at a minimum. It is my earnstwhile hope that these stubs, especially the shortest, will be expanded by other editors in the future, and many of them can be. To use Broken Eggs (Metropolitan Museum of Art) (cited above) as an example, the article as it stands is a very short stub that is more or less a retreading of the Met's article I used as a source [9]. However, as can be noted from the Met's website, there are several more paragraphs of content (from the Met catalogue entry on the painting) that can be re-written and added to the Wikipedia article; a quick google scholar search turns up more potential sources, and the same goes for JSTOR. This process could be repeated in regards to any number of the stubs I have created, allowing for their improvement if manpower hours are put into them. This effort could come from a well-established Wikipedia editor, or it could come from a less-experienced editor who may be confused by source editing. I believe that, by producing stubs with (mostly) correctly formulated infoboxes, placed categories, and a strong, reliable source (the Met entries), new ground can be cultivated for further expansion of the stub in question by any editor.

However, I do see the points against the micro-stubs. The fact that some of these stubs (as mentioned above) have not been edited in nearly a decade is disconcerting to say the least. Perhaps Google's increasing reliance on Wikipedia as a source for free information will help abate this issues, but it may behoove me to increase up my sentence count. Adding prospective articles to "List of works by X" is also an interesting idea, and would help reduce article counts.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • The stubs, such as Broken Eggs, seem fine, especially if they contain the image and additional information. Stubs sometimes summarize all there is to know about a work, and much of the importance of stubs is to exhibit the image itself in Wikipedia visible space. List of works by X is always a good idea, but as an extra page and not as a substitute for individual artwork articles which are valuable, for many reasons, themselves. The main concern I have is how much has been missed on the visual art templates. SamHolt6, do you add your new articles to the templates and to the artist's category? If so, and there is adequate information in the stub, then a thank you for your work. DilletantiAnonymous is also proficient and presents interesting works and images, yet doesn't add the new pages to the templates, so there is no centralized record of how current the templates are and what existing articles could be added, so it's catch as catch can (first time I've ever used that oddly worded phrase). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@DilletantiAnonymous: I do as part of my stub-producing MO, provided such a category exists. I have created several categories in the last few months, and created Template:Juan Gris after I created articles for all of Gris' notable works in the MET. I tend to avoid creating articles about works by redlinked artists.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I really don't see how repeating the MET's 5 lines on the painting, which any searcher will easily find, is helpful to anyone. We are just repeating their entries in WP space - why bother? Doing somehat longer articles (which with the MET can very often be sourced to the online books they put up, which are often rather less easy to find), or doing (in more than one sentence) works in a museum that doesn't have online commentary (in English), like Capodimonte, does serve some useful purpose. Don't expect anyone else to expand these stubs; do it yourself. Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@DilletantiAnonymous:, @SamHolt6: it's all well-and-good creating articles about artworks. My recommendation would be (before creating new ones), revisit the stubs and add provenance, some exhibition history, some publications where the works were reproduced (even if only in a Further reading section). The interested reader will know where to gather further information on the artist and work. Avoid, as in Seated Nude (1917), placing the bare URL source in External links. Familiarize yourselves with proper reference formatting. Use as example Gris' Still Life with Checked Tablecloth as a bare minimum when developing stubs further. Coldcreation (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the minimum requirement for WP:DYK is 1500 characters (of actual text) which is a reasonable minimum amount to cover many paintings. Then you can get a dyk as well. Btw, you can see on DilletantiAnonymous's talk that some reviewers seem to be on the warpath claiming (wrongly) that a minimum of 3 sources are needed to demonstrate notability - a range of sources is certainly better. Johnbod (talk) 04:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, and in his/her quasi-unique talk page response, here, the other user is treated unfairly as a "References Police". Coldcreation (talk) 05:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Aha - at least his English is fine - I was beginning to think that his (ahem) extreme lack of verbosity in articles & talk indicated a limited command of the language. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There are two topics here: (1) Stub requirements, and (2) Met stubs. Stub requirements are easy: It won't be deleted/merged if you add sufficient reliable, secondary, independent sourcing. If no one has provided sources, you should feel free to merge as suggested.
The real discussion is why we're working with the assumption that every object in the Met's catalog warrants its own article. When a Met object only has sourcing from Met publications (affiliated or non-independent sourcing), you have a pretty good indication that the external world doesn't find the object as important. Such articles are usually candidates for deletion/merger. czar 20:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree with that (as stated) at all. Not very surprisingly, the fullest and best coverage of major and minor objects in major museums is normally from the museum itself. It is entirely reasonable to write an article only using these sources. There will in the cases of important objects be coverage from other sources, but the ones that are most accessible online will typically be far lower quality - newspaper art critics, a line in quidebooks etc. The National Gallery and National Gallery of Art catalogues have entries of up to 40 pages per painting - generally more comprehensive than any other source, even for star works. For a stub to C class article it is entirely ok to just use these. Other sources that most paintings will have are the catalogue raisonné of t5he artist (virtually never visible online) and exhibition catalogues (except for old MET ones, also hardly ever online). There are arguments that not every painting in a collection is notable, but this line isn't one of them. For long articles almost entirely sourced to publications of the owning museums see for example: The Raising of Lazarus (Sebastiano del Piombo), Holy Thorn Reliquary (FA), Oxus Treasure, Lion Hunt of Ashurbanipal. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Generations of the Hudson River School discussionEdit

Please come participate in this discussion of the "generations" of the Hudson River School. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI, File:Marcel Duchamp Mona Lisa LHOOQ.jpg deletedEdit

Another one bites the dust. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know anywhere near enough about copyright law to be certain, but if the 1919 version was published before 1923, it should be in the public domain in the U.S. Isn't it just a matter of finding a good reproduction and uploading it with a proper license? My understanding is that the image was deleted because it lacked one. There is a good reproduction on that claims the copyright is Succession Marcel Duchamp/ADAGP, Paris and DACS, London 2016. We'd have to consult an expert to find out how much there is to that claim. Is was first reproduced in March 1920, in issue 12 of 391 (magazine) which was published in Spain, Switzerland and the U.S. (New York), although it seem the 9th to 19th issues were published in Paris. The author died 50 years ago. I've tried to figure out it's copyright status by reviewing but I'm afraid I lack the requisite expertise. Someone? Vexations (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think the photo itself has to be taken before 1923, but only that the artwork was already created and known by then. I can't do uploads or I'd put it back with before-1923 (soon to be 1924) attribution. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok, here is the actual page of 391: File:Marcel Duchamp, 1919, L.H.O.O.Q., 391, n. 12, March 1920.jpg. Next I will locate the original (reproduced). The Royal Academy version mentioned above is a different version. Coldcreation (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the moustache and eyes of the published (391) version, it seems it may have been retouched or modified as it was being prepared for print. If so, this version may not exist anywhere else. Coldcreation (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
This is interesting, on the published version. It may be Picabia's version. Coldcreation (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
It certainly looks that way, and it would be lovely to have both images in the article. It seem Picabia drew the moustache but omitted the goatee. The royal academy version is Duchamp's, the 391 was Picabia's. There is this image, and an explanation at
Nice. I found a higher resolution version: File:Marcel Duchamp, 1919, L.H.O.O.Q.jpg, now in the L.H.O.O.Q. article. Coldcreation (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


There has been a long discussion going on about statues, which no one has thought to notify & link to here. Now there's a proposal for a new "convention". None of them seem to have heard of WP:VAMOS. Comments welcome. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorolla ChallengeEdit

Hello. I would like to share with you that there is a writing challenge during November about the works of Joaquín Sorolla. You can participate in any language. The contest is organized by Wikimedia España and Museo Sorolla. The information about the project in at meta:Sorolla Challenge. Thanks. --Millars (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

jqitan and my page Ancient Cypriot artEdit

Hi. I'd love for my page Ancient Cypriot art to be included in this WikiProject. Do you think that it meets the guidelines? I'd really appreciate some feedback or a peer review from this project base. Thank you! --Jqitan (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Jquitan, it seems like a very good page which has been edited by others after your above notice to make it even better. It needs categories, which maybe someone can help with. Nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Guernica exemptionEdit

Still interested in putting forward a suggestion for a Guernica exemption for the "copyrighted" (even though Picasso gave it freely to the people of Spain) image to be used on the Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía page. The reasoning is that even though it holds other magnificent and important work, this single artwork defines the museum. Guernica is, in many ways, more than just a painting, but is an international treasure. Question: Is there any other museum which is defined by one artwork that's still in copyright? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFCEdit

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Frank Schoonover#Alvin York paintingEdit

Shouldn't Frank Schoonover#Alvin York painting be split into a separate article?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Visual arts".