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?

Titling for Black Abstractionism

[edit]

Hey all, hoping for some help from other modern/contemporary art editors. The article Black Abstractionism covers the recent - 20th century on - history of African–American and other Black artists creating and exhibiting abstract art. I flagged this on the talk page but didn't get any responses; I think the article is very important and contains info that totally belongs on Wiki, but it's nowhere near being in line with the MOS or Wiki's sourcing rules.

The bigger issue to me though is the title. I have no idea how editors came to the term "Black Abstractionism" as the authoritative phrase for the general history of abstract art by Black artists; I can't think of any notable authors who have posited that phrase as the primary identifier of this history/movement - lots of different terms abound, both historical and contemporary, from Afro-American Abstraction to Blackstraction, none have become the de facto or authoritative term in the literature, to my knowledge. Given the content of the article, it makes more sense to me to be titled something like "Abstract art by black artists" or similar. There have been a huge number of exhibitions/journal articles/books in the past 25 years chronicling this topic and history, so it clearly deserves an article of its own (even if, imo, and in the opinion of many scholars/artists, it's reductive to group artists as "black abstract artists" instead of simply "abstract artists" or even "artists"). The title just doesn't make sense to me.

Do others have insights into what this article should be titled? Again, I asked on the talk page but haven't heard anything. None of the sources seem to support the title as it's been chosen currently. 19h00s (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that there are a lot of artist bios on here that now include language to the effect of "this artist was a figure in Black Abstractionism", seemingly added by editors working on this article. Because so many museums are now reusing Wikipedia content, a lot of museums have that copy republished directly on their websites, meaning people are reading info on a museum website that they will assume is authoritative that makes it seem as if this identifier is correct and universal. Wouldn't be surprised if this somehow snowballs into a sort of citogenesis situation with third party writers/reporters assuming that this term is the authoritative phrasing for this topic. 19h00s (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone's interested in the conversation, I've started a move request for this article's title. Tried to engage in dialogue with the primary contributor to this article but have gotten nowhere. Would love some extra eyes on this as I really don't think we should be defining "movements" or art "isms" without rigorous sourcing. 19h00s (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel in the Lions' Den (Rubens)

[edit]

A GA that recently failed FAC. Non native English speaker who has done great research but the article is lacking polish especially wrt reference formatting. Needs a lot of (relatively light) fairy dust. Asking for eyes and help to it get over the line. Ceoil (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

[edit]

Hello,
Please note that Classificatory disputes about art, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

Edits to Francisco Goya

[edit]

There have been some tendentious edits to Francisco Goya and List of works by Francisco Goya in recent days. I'm not versed enough to know if they are sound. Perhaps someone here can weigh in. At the very least they need some editing. rblv (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. User:Ceoil perhaps, or anyone? Johnbod (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have reverted. Looks very essay-ish with phrases such as "When studying Goya, a crucial point to bear in mind is that" and "It is therefore important to recognize that". Some of it may be salvageable, but a lot seems to be fancifying up points that were already in the article. Ceoil (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Op art vs. Trompe-l'œil

[edit]

The recent death of Günther Uecker brought to my attention the term Op art. I think its article should distinguish it from Trompe-l'œil and vice-versa. Can anyone here do that.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done that. Johnbod (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Op art should probably also be mentioned at Trompe-l'œil in a clarifying way.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

-02:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Wadsworth Jarrell

[edit]

Wadsworth Jarrell 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) 18:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TFA dates investigation

[edit]

Both FA that haven't run on the main page, and a bit more information on dates related to them could give some clues when to run them. A month range for when Beauty revealed or when Musidora was exhibited would help out. It doesn't have to be a specific date. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly? "Four versions of Musidora attributed to Etty exist in total, the first of which was exhibited at the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition in 1843" - this has opened in June in recent decades, & probably did in 1843. As the article explains,Beauty Revealed wasn't exhibited until long after it was paintedm in 2008 apparently. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anniversaries give hints or reminders when to run it on the main page so FA don't just languish and never run. With 715 articles that are FA and have never run, it's possible that some will never actually make the front page. The page for William Etty has a very clear obvious date to run it (his birthday), and the exhibition date makes the most sense for paintings. Etty's The Combat ran last month roughly on the anniversary of its first exhibition in 2025, and the article was nominated in 2015. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harizotoh9, I really appreciate people tending to the thankless task of scheduling TFA's, but there is a feeling by some that using loose anniversaries as a scheduling mechanism is a bit meah, and perhaps glib. A better alternative would be a spreadsheet or sortable table, but just saying why you might have been slightly bitten here :( Anyway and best Ceoil (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There may be "715 articles that are FA and have never run", but almost none on paintings - perhaps just these two. Is nudity more the issue here? Both show naked breasts prominently. If we have just had an Etty recently, it may be best to leave a longish interval, and not worry about a specific date. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is true and indicates why a measure other than dates will avoid closeness. Ceoil (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs Playing Poker provenance/location

[edit]

Of the 152 specific works of painting listed at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Arts#Specific works of visual art only one work seems to be missing any significant provenance/location information: Dogs Playing Poker. It might seem like the fact that this is an extensive series is a valid explanation. However, Self-portraits by Rembrandt, Water Lilies (Monet series) and Wheat Fields all seem to have significant content in this regard.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have thought the same in wondering where the original paintings in this series are exhibited or collected. I fully expect them to end up in major museums at some point, and one or two to be among the most expensive artworks - they are that iconic of 20th century artifacts. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On Commons (see commons:Category:Dogs Playing Poker (Coolidge)), only Poker Game has any provenance. It is listed as being in a private collection. I suppose we can add (private collection) to that image's caption. Peaceray (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to understand why this is the only important work that we don't have any documenatation of either location or private collection status for almost all of them.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Sanguine § Requested move 8 July 2025

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sanguine § Requested move 8 July 2025, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Ham II (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New WikiProject

[edit]

Hello!

I propose a WikiProject with the working title of Art & Architecture Copyedits.

The proposed WikiProject has two main goals:

  1. To copyedit any articles related to Art & Architecture that have the copyedit or clarify tag, and
  2. To create a supportive, welcoming space for newcomers. Experienced editors are also very appreciated, especially for the proposal process, but the WikiProject, once created, will mainly be recruiting newcomers.

If you would like to join, please do comment below, and I'll ping you during the proposal to confirm your intent. I will be posting this message on all related WikiProjects. All experience levels appreciated! 22ManzanaBoy (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sculpture name

[edit]

I don't do a lot of work on foreign soil. I have created an article for a sculpture whose name seems to be literally translated by the press as Against All Currents, but more idiomatically translated by the sculptor as Against the Tide. How should I handle the name of the sculpture.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Call to action regarding Jérôme Duquesnoy l'Ancien

[edit]

I was researching painters and sculptors at WP:VA. I went through all the current VA specific works of painting and sculpture during this research. There is one article that oddly points to a visual artist that has articles on 6 wikis but not ENWP. Creator of Manneken Pis  5 Jérôme Duquesnoy l'Ancien, who also seems to be known as Jérôme Duquesnoy the Elder, seems like he should have an article on ENWP. I am encouraging others to stub this guy out.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"l'Ancien" is "the Elder" in French; we should use Jérôme Duquesnoy the Elder. Or Jerôme Duquesnoy (I), as his son (exceuted for sodomy) is at Jerôme Duquesnoy (II).

Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnbod, Thx for the clarification. Is this guy close enough to your wheelhouse to stub him out. I have to imagine if he has articles in 6 languages, he is notable.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly notable, but I'm unlikely to get round to it for some time. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Specific works for vital artists

[edit]

At WP:VA4 1 of the 10 sculptors and 6 of the 63 painters have no specific works listed as among the vital specific works of paintings, sculptures and other media. I was wondering if anyone here has opinions on what specific works would be the most important for consideration for editors to improve for each the following artists: Joseph Beuys  4, Antoine Watteau  4, Camille Pissarro  4, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec  4, Wassily Kandinsky  4, Marc Chagall  4, Gerhard Richter  4.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger The vital articles lists stress me out for some reason (I think just the visual chaos), but a few suggestions for Beuys on individual works:
Richter and Kandinsky are difficult as most of their very notable work comes in the form of series, not necessarily individual paintings. Although there should definitely be standalone articles for Richter's Six Gray Mirrors (on long term view at Dia Beacon) and the article for Richter's 18. Oktober 1977 series could use some TLC given its importance. 19h00s (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd agree with those from Beuys. I Like America and America Likes Me is in my experience the image most often used in art history textbooks with just a single image of his work, followed by How to Explain Pictures to a Dead Hare. For general strategies for helping determine what the most important work(s) for any of these artists might be, I suggest maybe: 1) Check for notable work in the box at the bottom of their article like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Joseph_Beuys 2) Looking at page views of articles on their works like [4] which in this case seems to confirm the same three in the same order that 19h00s listed. 3) Check what other sources like Britannica mention, for example https://www.britannica.com/biography/Joseph-Beuys mentions only "one of his best-known actions, How to Explain Pictures to a Dead Hare." Asparagusstar (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:19h00s, VA has room for series. VA includes Wheat Fields  5, Sunflowers (Van Gogh series)  5, Water Lilies (Monet series)  4, Self-portraits by Rembrandt  5, and Bird in Space  5, as well as other series and sets of variations. Let me know what specific subjects you think are important even if they are series.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For Watteau, from my experience and checking a few books, The Embarkation for Cythera seems to be the work most often shown. Asparagusstar (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the biggest Richter/Kandinsky expert so I'd mostly leave that to others, but I do think the 18. Oktober 1977 series is due for expansion/improvement, it's been extensively cited as one of his most important, if not his most important non-abstract series. 19h00s (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I'm fascinated to see how the history - and critical legacy - of Richter's squeegee paintings is eventually rendered on Wikipedia. Thinking especially about Artforum's choice to put a Jack Whitten painting on the cover of the magazine in February 2012, a painting that looks quite a lot like Richter's squeegees but in fact predated Richter's technique by two decades. That issue of Artforum came out while Richter had a massive retrospective traveling from Tate to Berlin; it also contained a Benjamin Buchloh essay about Richter's paintings. The whole thing caused a bit of drama in art circles over "who did it first". The conversation has come up again over the past year with Whitten's retrospective at MoMA, I've read several curators and critics pointing out that Whitten developed the technique earlier.
All that is to say: art history is malleable, things change and we learn more about different artists. I'm very interested to see how that kind of history/narrative/evolution is eventually incorporated in the long term, and how those changes/developments are eventually incorporated into decision making around Vital Articles. 19h00s (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Massviews analysis, as eg here for Category:Paintings_by_Henri_de_Toulouse-Lautrec can give an idea, though the results can be skewed in various ways - big recent auction results etc. Johnbod (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Johnbod, What an interesting tool. I guess you can combine that with interwikis for a quick and dirty of what is vital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Fledglings?

[edit]

In the course of researching Morris Park Aerodrome, I started User:RoySmith/drafts/The Fledglings and was surprised to discover I could find very little about the painting. If anybody can point me at some better sources, I'd be grateful for your assistance. RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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[5] 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]

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]