Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Different artworks? Different pages?..

[edit]

Hello editors,

I have a question about Follow my dreams page. It is about a hand-painted mural by the italian artist TVBoy in 2022 in the city of Barcelona. This mural was originally called "Super Alexia" where you could read in the background the phrase: "Follow your dreams" with the footballer Alexia Putellas stepped out painted in a Superwoman outfit with a cape clearly visible on her back. In 2023, due to the multitude of vandalism acts, the artist decided to redo the mural, but neither the phrase nor the drawing of the player were the same. You can see the clear differences with the 2022 painting: [1] and the 2023 updated painting: [2]

In the Talk:Follow my dreams I proposed to make different articles because the new painting of 2023 should be treated as a completely different one even if it is located in the same place and on top of the old painting. The painting and the message in the background is totally different as you can read in the article: [3]

Throughout history, many painters have painted over other paintings and they have never been treated as updates of these but yes as a different works. It is currently an active dispute with user Kingsif that recently moved the page (Super Alexia to Follow my dreams) and reverses the edits I made because he wants to fix the date of the old 2022 painting but the name "Follow my dreams" was created in the year 2023 not in 2022.

What do you think?

I need help understanding the importance of an image

[edit]

I am going to be borrowing a lens from Canon Professional Services to get a couple of pics for us. I am allowed to do an evaluation loan on almost any piece of camera equipment they sell for 10-days. Boating Party currently has a low res image, a high res image with a brown band and a crop of that at commons. It has a good shot to get a picture slot on DYK so I Canon is going to ship me a lens next week to take on the day of the August 7 Gustave Caillebotte lecture at the Art Institute of Chicago. I have gotten them to approve a 24mm/1.4 lens. I don't really need anything that wide for Boating Party, but I am also working on User:TonyTheTiger/Sandbox/America Window this, which is on the Art Institute apps Essential tour of 12 items to see. Currently, we have articles for 9 of the 12 items plus my Sandbox effort. The 12 are mostly no brainers. The 4 WP:VAs (A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte  4, American Gothic  5, Nighthawks (Hopper)  5, Paris Street; Rainy Day  5); 2 articles that are currently nominated at VA (Haystacks (Monet series), The Old Guitarist); three others that we have articles for (Assumption of the Virgin (El Greco), Improvisation No. 30 (Cannons), Bathers by a River), the America Window article I am working on that is of clear importance to me. There is a statue that I am not qualified to assess and then the final article is not of clear importance to me City Landscape by Joan Mitchell who once held the record for highest sale price at auction by a female artist. I am a bit surprised that this was chosen over a Magrite, Van Gogh or O'Keeffe. Maybe I should get a picture of this work too and create an article. Does anyone know the significance of this work and why it would be in the dozen works that are considered essential by the AIC? TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few notes on the Mitchell painting:
  • It was included in the Vanguard 1955 exhibition originating at the Walker Art Center, generally considered an important exhibition of the era (included painters like Richard Diebenkorn).
  • It seems to mark a transition period in her style, beginning to move away from the duskier, muted tones of her early period abstractions and starting to embrace brighter, more intense colors.
  • It is one of a number of her works from this period with the title City Landscape, presumably because it is meant to represent a specific city, most likely New York or Paris; she is quoted on the AIC page as saying her works are "landscapes", though visually abstract.
  • I don't know that much about this specific painting, but it does seem to occupy a special place in Mitchell's oeuvre as a transition-period work, and Mitchell is generally considered one of the most important post-war American artists. Not that surprised it was picked as essential by AIC tbh.
--19h00s (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:19h00s, Are you saying that an article with the title City Landscape should encompass a series?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I don't see anything like this at joanmitchellfoundation.org. Maybe you are seeing a set of sketches or something (although I am not of the impression that she sketches her abstracts)?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an identically titled work by Mitchell that sold at Christie's last year. I'm running between off-wiki tasks rn so I'll answer more fully later, but I don't think this was a series, per se. She just seems to have used the same title for several works - I'd have to crack open some of the literature regarding her style/evolution to find the specifics on how many works had this title and how/if they're actually connected beyond sharing a name. 19h00s (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger I did some more searching - I can't find any references online to this being a defined "series" in the formal sense, but there are definitely multiple separate paintings with this title, all from the same period. I think to get the details on this someone will need to dig through some of the (many) books on Mitchell.
I did find some info on SFMoMA's website about the identical titles which references the work owned by AIC. The piece quotes curator Marin Sarvé-Tarr: "Mitchell titled several paintings from the 1950s City Landscape, pointing to the lack of distinction she saw between urban and natural environments. 'For Mitchell, natural landscapes and cityscapes were deeply intertwined in her experiences of the world,' says Sarvé-Tarr. 'She saw them both as ripe territory for painting.' " 19h00s (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:19h00s, I will be spending time at the Library soon. I was going to research Chagall's America Window. Everybody in Chicago is checking out the Caillebotte and Impressionist books at the library right now, so I will have to wait a few months to research him. I am not sure where City Landscape will fall in terms of future research. It sounds like you have uncovered a lot. If AIC thinks it is important, time will probably prove them right. I don't understand abstract expressionism so well anyways. I'll take photos of it, but since it is 70 years old, copyright is expiring some places, but it is probably either {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-no notice}}, somebody else should probably tackle it. A high res file will get reduced so you could just screenshot this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the copyright of it all, I would also assume that Mitchell did not use copyright notices on her paintings (have never spotted a notice on the paintings I've seen irl). But notably the Joan Mitchell Foundation (JMF) did get into a copyright fight recently with LVMH. The Fondation Louis Vuitton hosted a traveling retrospective of Mitchell's work in 2022, along with a show putting Mitchell's work alongside work by Monet. LVMH then used Mitchell's paintings installed in the show as the backdrop for an ad campaign for Louis Vuitton, after JMF had rejected an earlier request to do so. JMF sent LVMH a cease and desist and the two parties eventually settled for an undisclosed amount, so there's no way to know for sure what would have happened had they made it to the evidentiary stage of any legal proceedings. (funnily, the Joan Mitchell show no longer appears on the Fondation Louis Vuitton's website, though the Monet-Mitchell show is still listed and describes the retrospective) 19h00s (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to copy two different lisences. I don't remember the other now, but regardless, you seem to be a great researcher and more knowledgeable about this subject than I. You should take a stab at this work. BTW, I have sent an inquiry to JMF regarding the various works under the same name.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • She is Chicago-born and an alumn of both a local high school (Francis W. Parker School (Chicago)) and college (School of the Art Institute of Chicago), so her work may have a special priority at the AIC. Her work is obviously valuable since she sells at $20 million. Maybe her work is our best abstract expressionism. Maybe they wanted a local. Cutting down to 12 works is no doubt difficult. If I were to choose an SAIC alum, I would have gone with Jeff Koons for the last spot. Among women, Georgia O'Keefe has been far more prominently presented in exhibitions (although I am realizing that Mitchell may be outselling her at auction now). I wonder if Mitchell's AbEx work is also gaining on Jackson Pollack AbEx works at auction.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With the caveat that I'd need to find more citations to back this up: I'd wager that Mitchell is in the top 3 most notable/famous AbEx painters. Pollock is essentially cemented as the most famous but even just in the past few months I've read contemporary critics citing Mitchell for her broad notability (Andrew Russeth recently claimed in NYT that Mitchell rivaled Willem de Kooning as America's greatest living abstract artist in the late 20th century). 19h00s (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notable works lists in Infoboxes

[edit]

At Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#How_important_are_VAs_for_biographical_subject_infoboxes, I got no feedback regarding adding WP:VA articles to Infobox notable works lists. User:Ceoil just brought my attention to a discussion at Talk:Caspar_David_Friedrich#Infobox_issues regarding a plethora of infobox issues including unsourced notable works lists. I spent quite a few hours this morning doing what I thought was handling notable works issues. There are 3 types of situations that I was dealing with: 1. Infobox with no notable works listed. For these I added all WP:VAs. 2. Infoboxes that only include VAs but not all of them. For these I rounded out the lists. 3. Infoboxes that included many works that were not VAs but excluded some VAs. For these I made a list that I will put forward soon for discussion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jip Orlando, Bluevestman, and Johnbod: Pinging the other Friedrich discussants.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. in a few cases, not only was there no notable works list at all, but also there was not even an infobox. I added the infobox with the appropriate VAs.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:36, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, you have said above a few times "I basically know nothing about visual arts", and now you want to throw open the highly subjective call on what are "artist X's most notable works? I'm sensing busy work and careless, cobbled-together infobox lists. Ceoil (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am merely adding all VAs to infoboxes, unless the infobox has information suggesting there is some disagreement on what the most vital are for a subject (includes items not listed at VA). This is not subjective on my part. The subjectivity is the consensus of VA editors, but at least 4 people think these are vital for them to be listed at VA, so it is not just me and not random.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:40, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just seek guidance on what to do for infoboxes that contain items not listed at VA.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This is not subjective on my part. The subjectivity is.." So it "is" subjective. I'm not opposed to the drive but urge caution and slow down.Ceoil (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is subjective in the same way that WP:FAs are subjective. It is a consensus of anywhere from 4 to 12 or 15 WP editors.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine Tony; overall I very much welcome your recent work & tks. Ceoil (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So do you have any advice on how to handle infoboxes that have notable works that are not considered vital and omit works that are considered vital?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • O.K. I added dozens of links to dozens of bios. User:Ceoil removed the vital article additions from Caspar_David_Friedrich due to previously discussed Talk:Caspar_David_Friedrich#Infobox_issues and the resulting consensus toward not having an infobox for this subject. User:Fram has removed them from Jan van Eyck and Peter Paul Rubens in favor of blanking the notable works parameter in well fleshed out infoboxes. This is a different issue. Fram, can you explain your decision to remove the vital articles from the notable works parameter. The edit summaries make it seem like you feel my choices were POV. I was including subjects listed at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Arts/Audiovisual_arts#Specific_works_of_visual_art. Is this objectionable?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify. There are 294 specific works listed. I have done them all except for the 9 fashion designs, 33 photographs, a handful of artists who use infoboxes that are not receptive to notable works, a handful of works without a known author, and 40 other works where I am considering what to do since the infoboxes contain notable works that are not currently listed vital articles. I would estimate that I have added or confirmed the pre-existence of 200 total works in the notable works parameter.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The infobox doesn't have to list notable works, and in the case of these two artists (and probably many other ones) there is such an abundance of notable works that it is better not to list any at all. The vital articles lists are rather random (and self-proclaimed "under construction" anyway), the choices of which paintings are the most notable for an artist are debatable, and should probably be discussed at the article talk page instead. I e.g. also don't agree that your edit at Dürer[4] was an improvement. Fram (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Fram, many fields in an infobox have some subjectivity and we always hope editors make reasonable decisions. The list of vital articles is always in flux, but it is directionally correct. You could definitely do worse than defining what is important from that list. In June, I used it to guide my trip through the Louvre. There are probably a bunch of ways to find an essentials tour of the Louvre, but I enjoyed the vital articles one. I know for some artists that I am familiar with there is some variation depending on the source as to which articles are the most notable/vital. I just decided to use that list as a reasonable set of instructions.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edits weren't unreasonable, but for some articles on my watchlist at least I think the previous situation was better. In which case, if you still think the change needs to be made, discussion on the article talk page is best. Using the vital articles list can't be a general guidance anyway, many artists don't have any article on the lists but still have notable works. And I would hate to go to the Louvre and not see the Madonna of Chancellor Rolin because some Wikipedia editors don't consider it a vital article. Fram (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fram, I don't think the infobox notable works parameter is for a comprehensive list, so I strongly disagree with the Dürer. Those lists even include elements that are not even notable enough to have articles. That parameter is suppose to teach you the short list of things that a person is noted for. Listing the sum of their work in that field is not appropriate.
    We only include 294 specific visual arts works of which 152 are paintings. So there can be no policy that notable works have to be vital to be included in the infobox parameter, but it is not unreasonable to say that all vital articles should show in these lists. No one who isn't VA3 has more than 4 vital specific works. No one who is not VA4 has more that 2 vital specific works. No one who is not VA5 has more than 1 vital specific work. Notable works are relative to the artist. Any artist at any level (even below vital) could have 3 or even 5 works for which he is most well known with none of them or only some of them being vital. For that person, whatever he is known for should be included in the parameter. This conversation is making me realize, I should just add the remaining 40 vitals to the bios even if they have non-vitals listed. I will get to that soon. I am happy to show up someplace to talk about Jan van Eyck and Peter Paul Rubens. I just think that place should be here for this issue. The issue is my general pursuit of adding all vital articles to notable works parameters. Even if there is disagreement on what is most notable for individual it helps the reader find at least a starter set of what that person is known for. If I wanted to have a hand in which additional works should be on that artists infobox, then the individual talk place would be advisable. I am only here to discuss whether adding VAs to all bios is something we should support.
    I would advise a Louvre first-timer like myself to take a guided tour and add in whatever else WP lists as vital. Then a wikipedia editor should go take selfies with articles he has had a heavy hand in just like he is at the Mona Lisa. Unless you plan on spending a whole day at the Louvre (which is could be worthwhile) that is a good first visit.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Durer is noted for much more than just two engravings though, he has e.g. made some of the most important and iconic self portraits ever, like the Self-Portrait (Dürer, Munich). You removed all mention of his paintings from the "notable works". Reducing an artists "most notable" works to the few which have, sometimes rather randomly, been added to the "vital" articles, is often not a good idea. The whole "vital atrticles" level 5 is a bad idea in any case. Fram (talk) 07:34, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fram, Please review MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. It is not suppose to be used for exhaustive lists. We are trying to deliver "key facts at a glance" not send them off to navigate exhaustive list. The less information the better. Presenting his whole career in notable works is counter to what an infobox is for. You have converted the infobox into a see also section. The article already has such a section with those exhaustive list articles. I am going to revert the Dürer, because of your lack of understanding of what an infobox is for.
    You have at least twice associated the vital articles list with the word random. Do you understand that consensus is mandated for inclusion. People don't vote by throwing darts. Rather than misclassifying the selection process, can we discuss vital articles as a consensus based process. The selected items are included because at least 4 people believe that the subject is among the 50,000 out of over 7 million (less than top 0.75%) subjects most worthy of editorial focus on ENWP. How is that random. We are talking about consensus of between 4 and 12 or 15 editors. Adding two VA works that have achieved such consensus to Dürer, we are helping the reader by prominently placing works in the infobox that are likely to be subjects that the reader would want to be directed to as most prominently associated with the subject. It does not stop you from adding 2 or 3 other such subjects.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Linking to three lists is summarizing, it is not enumerating all these works. Removing "notable works" completely from the infobox for artists who have too many notable works is also perfectly in line with "infoboxpurpose", which states "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose". As for random, I am e.g. unable to find after which discussion Knight, Death and the Devil was added as a vital article. Fram (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How is three lists that exhaustively enumerate his career providing a summary of his notable works. Exhaustive lists are not summaries. this edit marks the addition of Knight, Death and the Devil. Level 5 was created in 2018, IIRC, so the early list may have been a bit random, but most content has been reevaluated now. Do you have reason to believe that there would be consensus to remove this today?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I see that you added a Picasso sculpture to his infobox because it is "vital", which isn't noted on the talk page: it looks as if this one, which really isn't one of the most important artworks of the 20th century or of his career, was added randomly as well. It looks indeed as if the vast, vast majority of that list was created without any indication of where consensus was reached, and while many entries are no-brainers (no one would argue that the Ghent Altarpiece isn't a vital article), many others are indeed quite random, apparently just an idea of "this is a major artist, let's pick some of their works". If the list was created now from scratch, it would be quite different.
    There probably is a very good reason why we don't seem to have "known for" for e.g. pop artists or classical composers (the infobox just list to a discography or a list of compositions, just like our Durer article!). Fram (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I strongly agree with Fram on this, and think the main reason you are getting push back is that your basis, the vital articles list, was arbitrarily thrown together without much discussion and needs a lot more thought. Having scanned over the last week or so, its deeply flawed and no basis as a source for unilaterally updating artist's bios with definitive "major works". Ceoil (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are saying exactly. WP:VA is a work in progress rather than anything definitive, but directionally correct. I'm interested in what is deeply flawed about the visual arts specific works list. We know there is no definitive list of greatest paintings anywhere. E.g., 100 Great Paintings is completely ridiculous. I don't know anyone who agrees with their choices for Lichtenstein or Warhol. VA is certainly not a definitive list. However, notable works parameters in infoboxes are generally not sourced and I am not claiming they are a source. I don't use any WP:ICs. Those parameters seem to just be filled in by well-intended editors. VA is a consensus of well-intended editor, which is better than a single well-intended editor. Nothing is etched in stone. I am just trying to add a bunch of generally agreed choices to the notable works parameter. You seem to be misunderstanding the issue. It is not whether I have the right lists. This is a parameter in which we present key facts regarding notable works. The current arguement is whether the notable works parameter is suppose to present comprehensive lists of career works or a short list of specific works. That it the argument regardless of what well-intended list I use. You have completely missed the mark because you have not talked at all about this choice. Are you saying Fram is right that we are suppost to use comprehensive lists of career works in notable works parameters.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the choices in Vital Articles are even directionally correct. You are repeatedly claiming they are and are spearheading a drive to modify artists' infoboxes as if they are "generally agreed" which they are not. My preference is that infoboxes do not contain any such parameter. Ceoil (talk) 05:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's reset. The WP:LEAD, which includes the WP:INFOBOX (to the right of the LEAD on desktop and after first paragraph of LEAD on mobile) is supposed to be an editorial summary of the article. It is OK if the LEAD has no sources because it summarizes the main body where sourced content is required. The proper way to summarize an article is to present the important points of the main body. Technically, the proper way for me to update notable works parameters is for me to go through each article and determine what works are most notable based on the presentation of the main body. Using the VA list is certainly not equivalent to summarizing the main body of that artists bio. The LEAD and INFOBOX of an artist's bio are suppose to be summaries of the key facts of the body of each artist's article. I understand that what I was doing was not that.
  • We have very few fully fleshed out WP:FA-level artist bios. Until the body of each artist's bio is an FA-level summary of his life and legacy, summarizing it in the LEAD (including the INFOBOX) is problematic. So what was I doing. I was attempting to figure out a quick and dirty way to augment notable works parameters with content that is supposed to be an editorial consensus. Whether VA is "generally agreed" list is a different thing than saying it is suppose to be the best current approximation of an editorial consensus. Involved parties are suppose to look at the list and assess whether the current listings belong or should be displaced (via add/remove/swap nomination process).
  • The actual disconnect is not in which source list I am using. The proper procedure to fill in the list is to determine the notable works as a summary of the main body content. When I say directionally correct, I assume that most specific works at VA are works prominently presented in artist bios. I have never checked this. There is no correct list to use, no independent source of notable works.
  • None of this addresses the debate that we are having at Albrecht Dürer. The question there remains whether a notable works template parameter should include comprehensive listings of works or specific works. Right now it looks like in the absence of an agreement, we are going to include both.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to VA lists. I would say "arbitrarily thrown together without much discussion" and "deeply flawed" is a bit misleading for the specific works of visual arts elements. I feel that for the few artists that I have had enough editorial involvement with or knowledge of to assess, VA is pretty much correct (or directionally correct as I said). Comparing the VA listings for Warhol and Lichtenstein, I would definitely say those are directionally correct and way better than something like 100 Great Paintings. I have not studied art and don't know enough about most other artists to assess VA. If you were to redo the list with the same number of elements, what percent do you think you would replace?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chalk carving

[edit]
Notice

The article Chalk carving has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for almost 12 years. No other language has an article from which to translate. WP:NOTHOWTO.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive3

[edit]

There are only 17 specific works of paintings listed as Vital article level 4. Campbell's Soup Cans is one of those 17. It has lost its WP:FA status. I have restored it to a WP:GA, which was no small lift. It remains a WP:FFA. I am trying to restore it to FA status. Before I take another run at WP:FAC, I feel I need a WP:PR. In October 2023, it went 10 months at PR without any reviews. On July 8, I renominated it at PR. I need a reviewer.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am aware that if this project were going to decide the 17 most important paintings for Wikipedians to edit, the list might not even have a 50% overlap with our list, but this is an important set of works. They would probably all make the top 50 or at least top 100 if the list was decided only by people in this project.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to User:SNUGGUMS who stepped up a few hours after I posted this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive3

[edit]

Campbell's Soup Cans is a seminal piece of art that is a WP:FFA. It is one of 17 paintings listed at vital articles level 4 and one of 8 contemporary art works listed at vital articles level 5. Please feel free to comment on its current WP:FAC nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive3.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Artworks damaged, destroyed or stolen during the 2023 Brazilian Congress attack#Requested move 1 August 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Artworks damaged, destroyed or stolen during the 2023 Brazilian Congress attack#Requested move 1 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 04:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI regarding notable specific works of visual arts articles

[edit]

With the Gustave Caillebotte exhibition here at Art Institute of Chicago, it came to my attention that ENWP only had 11 articles of specific works by Caillebotte until I created Boating Party, while FRWP has 31 specific works articles. I have not checked on how common this is, but I would imagine that for painters whose primary language is not English, there may be English works to create based just on the set of foreign works.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here are some the same numbers for the French painters that Caillebotte collected:
Alfred Sisley: Category:Paintings by Alfred Sisley 37 items, FR:Catégorie:Tableau d'Alfred Sisley 49 items
Pierre-Auguste Renoir: Category:Paintings by Pierre-Auguste Renoir 66 items, FR:Catégorie:Tableau d'Auguste Renoir 96 items
Camille Pissarro: Category:Paintings by Camille Pissarro 22 items, FR:Catégorie:Tableau de Camille Pissarro 33 items
Claude Monet: Category:Paintings by Claude Monet 86 items, FR:Catégorie:Tableau de Claude Monet 119 items
Jean-François Millet: Category:Paintings by Jean-François Millet 13 items, FR:Catégorie:Tableau de Jean-François Millet 32 items
Édouard Manet: Category:Paintings by Édouard Manet 85 items, FR:Catégorie:Tableau d'Édouard Manet 99 items
Edgar Degas: Category:Paintings by Edgar Degas 23 items, FR:Catégorie:Tableau d'Edgar Degas 66 items
Paul Cézanne: Category:Paintings by Paul Cézanne 66 items, FR:Catégorie:Tableau de Paul Cézanne 79 items

Here is a small sample of names that you could get involved in. I imagine that many non-native English speakers are in the same boat.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for neutral creation of biography: Susie Hodge

[edit]

Hello — I’m requesting help from a neutral, experienced editor to create an article on Susie Hodge (British author and art historian), as my own conflict of interest prevents me from doing so.

She has written over 150 books, many for major publishers including Thames & Hudson, Tate Publishing, Laurence King, Frances Lincoln, and Greenfinch. Her books have won awards, been selected in national press "books of the year" lists, and appeared on bestseller lists. She has also appeared widely in broadcast media (CNN, Channel 5’s Great Paintings of the World, Studio 10 Australia, WNYC), and given talks at the Edinburgh International Book Festival, Bath Literary Festival, Dallas Museum of Art, the Royal Academy (London), PUCRS (Brazil), and more.

Significant independent coverage exists, meeting WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG criteria. A draft with references is here: Draft:Susie Hodge.

Any volunteer willing to take on the creation or improvement of this article would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Susie Hodge (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article about Nikolay Karabinovych – request for feedback.

[edit]

Hello! I recently submitted a draft article about Nikolay Karabinovych to Articles for Creation: [5].

Since this topic is related to contemporary visual arts and Ukrainian culture, I thought it might be of interest to members of this project.

Any feedback or review from experienced editors would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your time! R2t573 (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Veiled Christ about removing List of statues of Jesus from "See also"

[edit]

If interested please comment at Talk:Veiled Christ#List of statues of Jesus removed from See also, called "too general". The List of statues of Jesus page, distributed to its entries in February, 2023, immediately brought many more readers per day to the list and has provided sustained interest in the topic ever since. Please join the conversation if you'd like, maybe after browsing MOS:SEEALSO. The best thing coming from this may be the treat in store for editors who've never read or viewed the Veiled Christ. Be prepared to either scratch your head, have your mouth drop open, or just pick up a chisel and try to spend your life duplicating the statue, once widely believed to be created by magic. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow crossings

[edit]

Rainbow crossing (Toronto) and Rainbow crossings in California are nominated for deletion, if any project members are interested in weighing in or making article improvements. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pirouette DYK

[edit]

The article Pirouette: Turning Points in Design is scheduled to appear on WP:DYK. As the DYK "hook" that has been chosen links to our Morris Louis article, it might be an opportune time to review that article to make sure it is up-to-date. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Zak Smith

[edit]

There is a current RFC on Zak Smith that the project may be interested in weighing in. [6] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow crossing (Toronto)

[edit]

Rainbow crossing (Toronto) has been nominated for deletion, if any project members are interested in weighing in or making improvements. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Rainbow crossings in California ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Ngoia Pollard Napaltjarri

[edit]

Ngoia Pollard Napaltjarri has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Stele Always Remember

[edit]

International Stele Always Remember has been nominated for deletion, if any project members are interested in weighing in or making improvements. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Boeing Galleries

[edit]

Boeing Galleries has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Standardizing our approach to articles about exhibitions and exhibition lists on artist pages

[edit]

I am hoping to generate more of a conversation about standardizing Wikipedia articles about exhibitions - and the related but different subject of standardizing our approach and developing consensus around lists of exhibitions on artist pages. Although the manual of style has limited insight on these topics, there are sections that have hardly been the result of consensus and are generally still under debate, see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Lists of exhibitions. I generally put "Selected Exhibitions" as a section title instead of just "Exhibitions" e.g. Eduardo Navarro (artist) as exhibition lists can easily get long if the artist has a lengthy career or exhibition history. The number five exhibitions in the current manual of style recommendations on exhibitions seems arbitrary and way too short for reason though - as I said on the manual of style talk page linked above. Many many artist pages have more than five exhibitions, and in fact, exhibition lists, like discographies, are a great way to research the work of an artist. We need to come together as a community and figure out best practices around exhibition lists, as they are a critical part of the thousands of articles Wikipedia has on artists. I am going to be focusing on devising strategies to populate exhibition sections of Wikipedia articles about artists from Wikidata as part of my fellowship at MoMA that started this month. If you'd like to think more together with me on this, perhaps we could set up a group GLAM call or workshop on the topic. Thanks. Hexatekin (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In reality, "Selected exhibitions" is what the artists themselves prefer, they curate the lists of exhibitions to give a favourable impression of themselves. Wikipedia isn't in the business of writing CVs or resumés, we generally go for notability. If I'm writing (or editing) an artist's Wikipedia article I prefer "Notable exhibitions" as the section heading. Generally I would suggest culling long lists of participation in group exhibitions, unless the 'group' is very small, or the exhibition is of recognised importance, or the artist in question has been singled out for attention in an independent review. Solo exhibitions are a much surer sign of success, in my opinion, and any lists of exhibitions should concentrate on these. Sionk (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does this subject relate to specific works. I just created City Landscape with its early presentations and three later retrospective tour details included. I did not even consider the possible MOS issues.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Hexatekin and thank you for raising this issue! I raised something similar here a while ago now, hoping to get some clarity on a range of visual art style issues.
My two cents on exhibition lists: it is not a productive use of your time to further populate exhibition sections for artist bios; in fact, most artist bios could probably use trimming when it comes to the exhibitions section, as others have already pointed out. Exhibition lists are inherently context-less and do not provide any meaningful insight into the artist's style or life. They are also usually the easiest thing to find when researching an artist for a biography article, given that most notable artists working today produce professional CVs that make it very easy to find a full exhibition history. My approach in recent years has been to cull "Exhibitions" lists to a handful of the most notable solo shows (notability in terms of general notability and notability within an artist's career), and a very select few group shows (usually the most broadly recognized Biennials/Triennials/etc.).
Candidly, it can be really tempting to see the long, easily accessible lists of information available about visual artists, in particular their lists of works, lists of collections, or lists of exhibitions, and want to use those as the basis for creating or expanding articles on here. But these lists are not useful on their own, they are only useful when integrated into a broader biographical or historical narrative. That broader work of cleaning up and substantively expanding an artist biography with prose as opposed to lists is much more difficult but much more important. But I'll say, as someone with access to the MoMA Library collection, you are in the perfect position to do that broader work as part of your fellowship :)
For some examples of what that kind of expansion can look like for modern/contemporary artists, I'd suggest checking out the article history for Melvin Edwards or Sam Gilliam, two articles I expanded with significant prose after first being tempted to just gather up the context-free information available in their CVs. It took a long time, a lot of digging through old newspapers, magazines, and rare catalogues, but I think the articles are much better for it.
Hope this was somewhat helpful! 19h00s (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And just to put a finer point on the exhibition lists: because this information is often the most easily accessible when researching artists, many artist biography articles on here have essentially become nothing more than a list of exhibitions. Cleaning and culling those lists, many of them completely un-sourced, is something longtime visual arts editors have been working on for quite a while. So any change to the Visual Arts MOS to expand the recommended number of exhibitions in a list within a bio article would just encourage more of that kind of editing, which really adds nothing of value for the reader. It's like having an article for a musician with one line of biographical info but a 30-item discography; there's nothing the reader actually gains from knowing the titles of an artist's exhibitions with no other context. 19h00s (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
++ Would be more than happy to be in dialogue about this in some sort of discussion group/email chain. I am not a GLAM worker myself (GLAM-adjacent, I guess), but I'm definitely interested in fine tuning our approach to style and structure when it comes to visual arts articles. It's been a source of confusion for me personally over the years as I've tried to clean up and expand articles. 19h00s (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh I'm sorry for adding so much discussion here, but one more thing. I think this discussion actually gets at a major structural issue with visual arts content. The art history and research side of my brain understands exactly where you're coming from, in that information like this (lists of an artist's exhibitions) is a critical part of the field. Cataloguing and documenting things like an artist's full exhibition history are standard and important elements of art historical research. They are also, notably, important parts of the commercial gallery ecosystem, helping establish an artist's career or a gallery's reputation. And that's where the field of art history's standards rub against Wikipedia's guidelines and culture. Wikipedia articles aren't meant to be a substitute for or equivalent of a commercial CV or academic monograph of a topic/subject/person. And an academic monograph or commercial CV are usually where you would find an unmediated exhibition history for an artist.
I do agree that exhibition lists (and to a certain extent lists of works) are somewhat analogous to discographies for musical artists. In that vein, I've long wondered if it might be appropriate for extremely notable and/or prolific artists to have standalone "List of solo exhibitions by..." articles. I think there's a case to be made that modern/contemporary artists at a certain level of notability/sheer artistic output might deserve standalone exhibition list articles.
Relatedly, I think there are some widely held beliefs among select editors that make these kinds of discussions difficult. For example, I don't believe it's "promotion" to note what gallery represents an artist, especially if it's been covered extensively by reliable sources (as is often the case for high profile artists/galleries). There seems to be a long history of commercial galleries attempting to add information about their artists to Wikipedia which has led to somewhat of a kneejerk reaction by some visual arts editors to view any information about galleries/gallery representation as promotional. That can make these conversations become very black-and-white, where information is automatically categorized as wholly promotional or not, when in reality it's much more nuanced.
Obvi I have lots of thoughts so please do feel free to tag me in if you'd like to continue this discussion! Apologies again for what is now a wall of text, rip. 19h00s (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:19h00s, User:TonyTheTiger, User:Sionk and anyone else interested in discussing best practices for articles about exhibitions, as well as exhibition lists on artist pages. I'm trying to think of a good venue/forum to hold a community discussion over Zoom, Jitsi, or some similar platform about this topic. Any ideas? There are several conferences coming up, but we may have missed the deadlines. Possibly I could post about this on the not-so-used GLAM-Wiki mailing list and see where the discussion goes there first. Many many thoughts! I think evaluating what is considered a "notable" group show is extremely hard, when many galleries are widely known, with many group shows being important, and group shows are a major way young artists build careers and become known - it's not just solo shows that show notability, and many group shows are important but fall out of the biennial circuit. Hexatekin (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely don't disagree on the importance of non-Biennial group shows. Thinking back to shows like Primary Structures or something more recent like Soul of a Nation, these thematic exhibitions (at both commercial galleries and nonprofit museums/art spaces) can have a profound impact on the arc of a career. But I think again this gets at the bigger issue: you can only glean the importance of any single group exhibition by studying in depth the arc of an artist's career and examining the published discourse that surrounded (or didn't) their participation. It's not possible to know which group shows were actually notable in the context of their career without building out a broader biographical and career narrative in an article; and an unmediated list of group exhibitions, even if they are notable in all contexts, will not actually provide a reader with any reasonably useful information in a biography. I personally don't see value in adding most group exhibitions to artist biographies as a list, but rather embedded as part of the prose of their biography/career section.
Also courtesy pinging @Netherzone and @Downtowngal who both chimed in when I raised the exhibitions list in biographies question a few years ago. 19h00s (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Hexatekin, thanks for initiating this discussion! A good place to consider might be the GLAM Wiki Global Telegram group, which is a fairly good demographic for this conversation. Pinging @Jane023 and @Pharos who I recall having worked on modeling exhibitions in the past. Also, I would welcome you to join the meta:WREN calls and have this topic be one of the featured discussions, which is one of the best ways to get higher visibility to a group of knowledgeable folks. We also have the meta:Global GLAM calls on a monthly basis which would be a good venue for this to go beyond the borders of English Wikipedia, and perhaps talk Wikidata. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:08, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for thinking of me but I don't have strong opinions how to model exhibitions on artist pages. I have only worked on exhibitions with catalogs because I want the lender of the work for provenance and also because it's too difficult to track down the works without the metadata available in a published catalog. Sadly most modern art exhibitions over time are undocumented besides newspaper reviews, probably because the cost of publishing a catalog (at best often just a list of titles by artist) is too expensive. Lots of information is probably also buried in archives that haven't been digitized (yet). I would generally agree that only exhibitions should be included on Wikipedia pages that are specifically relevant to the artist. Jane (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Leonid Isaakovich Vail

[edit]
Notice

The article Leonid Isaakovich Vail has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 8 years. No other language has an article from which to translate. No hits on Google Books. Appears to be original research.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content removal at Boating Party

[edit]

I woke up this morning and saw a whole bunch of content removal edits at Boating Party by an experienced editor. Can others take a look at those removal edits. P.S. it is currently scheduled to be on the main page in 8 days.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tony! It seems that @AirshipJungleman29 removed several pieces of original research as well as information unrelated to the painting in question. I don't see any big problems with their edits, but it might be useful to chat with AJ29 to get a sense of what the specific issues were that they wanted to address. 19h00s (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes 19h00s, thanks for reading my edit summaries which explain my logic well. Any further questions Tony? Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:AirshipJungleman29, I have posted my specific questions on the article talk.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Capitol art merger proposal

[edit]

Hoping more editors might be able to weigh in here:

Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Start-class article reassessment for Saint Cecilia (Stefano Maderno)

[edit]

Hello, I believe the article on the sculpture Saint Cecilia (Stefano Maderno) has been expanded beyond Start-class. It now contains multiple sections, reliable sources, and more comprehensive coverage of the subject. I suggest reassessing it as B-class (or higher, if appropriate). Gavingaebe (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WPVA vs WP:ARTS

[edit]

It seems to me that WP:ARTS is a parent of WP:WPVA. It seems that merely adding the {{WikiProject Visual arts}} gets some articles monitored by both projects and some only VA. I am unable to see why an article might be on Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Article alerts and not Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts/Article alerts or vice versa.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:32, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARTS has been dead for years, and should just be closed down. Look at the tumbleweed on the talk-page. It's scope was always far too wide. Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Painting dimensions

[edit]

I'm rather confused on the dimensions of Klimt's Schloss by the Water and would appreciate if anyone could help. The National Gallery Prague, in which the painting is exhibited, gives it as 110 x 100 cm.[1] However many other sources list it as 110 x 110 cm ([2][3][4][5] etc.). I would consider the museum measurements the most authoritative however the inability to find this anywhere else has led me to question this (also the almost perfectly square images on commons [7]). I've noted this discrepancy within the article (diff) but would appreciate any clarification on whether to prefer one sizing over another. Thanks. Golem08 (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Klimt Foundation database also goes by 110 x 100 cm. [8] Golem08 (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Golem08 It's quite common to see these kinds of discrepancies between museum collection databases and published literature; I also see it a lot between museums and commercial galleries. Usually the discrepancy comes because previous dimension measurements were not completely accurate or precise enough and a new measurement was made (either by a museum or for a publication). Sometimes the work in question has literally changed dimensions as canvases and stretcher bars can warp, shrink, or expand, or the work was possibly re-stretched/re-framed, but more often it's just a case of a more precise measurement at a later time. I usually go with the most recent measurement, which, in the case of works in public collections, is usually the dimensions listed by the museum, as they were the most recent party to measure the work when they acquired it. But I also sometimes note these discrepancies or at least acknowledge them, as I did in the introduction to List of works by Sam Gilliam. 19h00s (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Visual_arts#Measurements - there are actually different things to measure: sight in frame, painted area, and canvas. A 10 cm discrepancy is big though, probably a typo by somebody. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It makes sense to use the most recent measurement. However since it's a large difference and the image in their online collections is perfectly square, it makes me lean towards it being a typo. I've contacted them for clarification. Golem08 (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ lab.SNG (1908). "Gustav Klimt - Vodní zámek". Web umenia (in Czech). Retrieved 2025-09-23.
  2. ^ Hodge, Susie (2014). Gustav Klimt, Masterpieces of Art. London: Flame Tree Publishing. ISBN 9781804177068.
  3. ^ Dobai, Johannes (1988). Gustav Klimt - Women. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. p. 88.
  4. ^ "Water Castle (1908) by Gustav Klimt – Artchive". Retrieved 2025-09-23.
  5. ^ "Gustav Klimt (1862-1918), Schloss Kammer am Attersee II". Christie's. Retrieved 2025-09-23.

Figurative vs. abstract

[edit]

I am trying to make sure I am understanding my sources for a bio I am working on. Would figurative and abstract art be considered opposites.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally yes. There's obviously nuance to that statement, but on the whole that's considered the case. 19h00s (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

View of the World from 9th Avenue

[edit]

In the details section, I present one source that claims this is a "1976 work composed in ink, pencil, colored pencil, and watercolor on paper" and another that says it is a "1975 wax crayon and graphite on paper composition". How should I adjust the infobox?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]