Talk:Stella Vine

message: There was an edit by an anon editor that I am "controlling" this article about Stella Vine in order to "destroy her career". The edit has been oversighted because of BLP considerations about a named individual.  I do not consider this allegation justified, and have posted to User talk:82.34.219.82 to request specific specific examples of any alleged bias to be stated here. It might be noted that 821 out of 1523 edits to this article have been made by User:Madeofstars. Comments about the article's conformity to wikipedi policy with regard to alleged bias are invited below. Ty 16:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As an observer of this article for a while, it seems clear that User:Madeofstars not only controls and patrols the article somewhat obsessively but he/she seems to attack User:Tyrenius a little too much..maybe it's time to take a break - it looks to me as though Stella Vine has a terrific article and she should be proud of the work done here...Modernist (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been attempts since 2005 to use this article to attack Thomson and the Stuckists, or to remove information about them: some examples where such edits have been reverted—from 2005, from 2007—usually from a series of anon editors, but material removed by  in 2008, e.g.. These edits have been reverted by different editors, as, per NPOV, content about Vine's interaction with Thomson and the Stuckists is necessary material for the article: it has been featured in mainstream sources on many occasions and she has spoken about it prominently in the media. There have also been accusations of bias and attacks on editors, who have included such information, as from the IP mentioned above on this thread. See also  above at #Learning about art by default: "This wiki site for Stella Vine has so obviously been exploited by the stukist (sic) for years now"; and anon at Talk:Charles_Thomson, Stella Vine, and the Stuckists#False edit summary: "your edits are continually biased and misleading". There have not been any examples provided of what text is supposedly biased. Ty 05:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article neutrality

message: Having looked at other Wikipedia articles featuring modern artists Francis Bacon, Salvador Dalí, Henry Moore, Pablo Picasso and Andy Warhol (two of the articles being featured articles), you find that pictures are used sparingly and are directly related to the article (being pictures of the artist, their work, and buildings/locations of note).
This article in contrast is littered with superfluous pictures, which add nothing to the article and make it look a mess. In fact this article more resembles a magazine article than an encyclopedia article.
I have therefore deleted the following superfluous pictures, which with the exception of the photo of Charles Thompson are all featured in the articles which are linked to in the main body text (the picture captions are all repetitions of text in the main body of the article).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Memphisto (talk • contribs) 
:I have moved the list of images with the comments attached to them to the section below #Examination of removed images, so they can be discussed in detail. Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: **Seems reasonable to show this...Modernist (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think Newell or Leigh can go...Modernist (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Leigh commented out pending outcome of Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_October_3#File:Ross_Newell_crop.jpg, to be reinstated if Ross is deleted. Ty 23:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

text: **Keep these...Modernist (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: These are ok...Modernist (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

text: OK...Modernist (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed to Tavistock Square image, as this has greater importance in the text. Ty 23:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

text: *Not necessarily, don't agree...Modernist (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

text: *Image moved to this section. Ty 23:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *agreed...Modernist (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Image removed. Ty 23:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

text: *agreed...Modernist (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Image removed. Ty 23:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Consensus does matter, the pictures are fine. She isn't Bacon, Warhol, Dali, Matisse, etc. and so she requires a differing approach. I completely disagree with comments by Mephisto. Firstly we do not compare artists to each other nor do we necessarily compare articles. Different issues, different characterizations, different works and different biographies define each separate article in different ways. I was among those who edited the Henry Moore article to FA status by the way. Thank you for your input - however the images are fine, a few of them can go, most are helpful...Modernist (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: An Encyclopedia, not a Magazine

message: A consensus was reached for article content by editors working on this article and reviewing it. You need to establish a new consensus, if you don't agree with that. I have therefore reverted your edit, which removed most of the images from the article. This is the article before image removals, 
and after the image removals. Your edit summary was "removed superfluous pictures (please see discussion: An Encyclopedia, not a Magazine)".
According to the guideline, Wikipedia:Images#Image_choice_and_placement: "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. Three uniformed portraits would be redundant for a biography of a famous general. A map of a battle and a picture of its aftermath would provide more information to readers." A variety of images have been presented near relevant text in this article.
Also in Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature: 
"Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic." The images are relevant and significantly related. They all shows aspects of her life, experience, influences and relationships, which are in the text and referenced from reliable sources.
A rule of thumb is to "Try not to overwhelm the text with 'too many' pictures—one image or infographic every 250 words is a good guideline." This ratio is advocated by others also. The article is around 6,000 words, which by this rule of thumb equates to 24 images. There were 19 images in the article. The proposed removals reduce this to 4 images.
The decision as to what images are suitable is dictated by article content. If an aspect of the article is valid in words, then it is also valid in a picture, which is simply another way of communicating information, including that which cannot be easily put in words. The equation of images with a "magazine", when the same thing in text is deemed to be "encyclopedic" is an irrational prejudice against the visual as opposed to the literary. Far from being "superflous", images help the reader a great deal to engage with the subject and gain entry into the facets of it, especially when a reader may not be familiar with what something looks like. 
It is not adequate to remove an image simply because it is in another article linked to in the text, if it is relevant to the subject of this article.  Articles should be as complete as possible within themselves.
One reason for the lack of images in many articles is that they are not available and often severely restricted by wikipedia's fair use policy. This article benefits from the availability of free images, some taken by editors specially for it. It is not a question of paring this down to other image-poor articles, but of trying to bring them up to this standard, so the text is properly complemented by pictures: "Images aren't a requirement for any Featured Article, but asking for specific parts of articles which would benefit from having an image to be more illustrated is a valid objection."
The image captions need to be pared down, and once the images are agreed on, this will be a simple job.
Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: Word count per section is a rough guide. Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: **Seems reasonable to show this...Modernist (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think Newell or Leigh can go...Modernist (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Leigh commented out pending outcome of Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_October_3#File:Ross_Newell_crop.jpg, to be reinstated if Ross is deleted. Ty 23:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

text: **Keep these...Modernist (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: These are ok...Modernist (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

text: OK...Modernist (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed to Tavistock Square image, as this has greater importance in the text. Ty 23:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

text: *Not necessarily, don't agree...Modernist (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

text: *Image moved to this section. Ty 23:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *agreed...Modernist (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Image removed. Ty 23:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

text: *agreed...Modernist (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Image removed. Ty 23:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Examination of removed images

message: There is no need to reach a new consensus for the Stella Vine article, the consensus already exists within the following related articles - Francis Bacon, Salvador Dalí, Henry Moore, Henri Matisse, Pablo Picasso, Jackson Pollock, Andy Warhol and living artists articles Banksy, Tracey Emin, Jeff Koons and David Hockney. (I would again point out that the Salvador Dalí  and Henry Moore articles have been featured articles – the very best articles on Wikipedia).
The use of pictures in these articles is limited to:
Pictures of the artist alone or with others.
Pictures of the artists work.
Pictures of buildings/locations of note to the artist.
As for the word/picture ratio, this would apply only to pictures that already meet the above requirements. 
The pictures I have deleted do not meet these standards. Memphisto (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus does matter, the pictures are fine. She isn't Bacon, Warhol, Dali, Matisse, etc. and so she requires a differing approach. I completely disagree with comments by Mephisto. Firstly we do not compare artists to each other nor do we necessarily compare articles. Different issues, different characterizations, different works and different biographies define each separate article in different ways. I was among those who edited the Henry Moore article to FA status by the way. Thank you for your input - however the images are fine, a few of them can go, most are helpful...Modernist (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: No need for a new consensus

message: Chancing across this article again, I've cut the following images as misleading:-
* Princess Diana and Didier Drogba: a neutral reader will expect an image captioned as "Vine painted this person" to be a photo of that painting, it seems unnecessarily confusing to have a photo unrelated to Vine's work
* Andy Warhol: inspiration and comparison does not merit the weight that a photo gives
* Germaine Greer: similarly, Greer writing an essay doesn't seem significant enough for a photo
* Top Shop: caption talks about her fashion range, image is (since it was taken two years later) not of that fashion range, and the article doesn't single out this particular store as significant, or whether the range was sold in all shops.
I've also clarified in the caption that the Windmill Theatre photo is not a contemporary one. --McGeddon (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Cutting images

message: Charitable work by Stella Vine was recently deleted and merged with this article. The art of Stella Vine has been tagged as another possible merge since February 2012, with no discussion - I've changed the templates to point to this discussion here, and proposed the same merge for Talks and collaborations by Stella Vine. All three articles have an uneven amount of overlap and would be better combined into a single, clear article. "Talks and collaborations" seems particularly thin, as it appears to be including every possible press interview Vine has given. ("In the same month, Vine told The Guardian that she would spend Christmas Day 2008 with a run around the Serpentine, or a walk in Hyde Park or across London town with her son's bullmastiff dog and a small haversack of whisky and coffee.") I've put a fourth article, Charles Thomson, Stella Vine, and the Stuckists up for deletion, suggesting it be merged with Vine and Thomson's articles. --McGeddon (talk) 08:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully with several of the content forks being nominated at AfD there should be wider interest in this issue at last. It is a no-brainer in my view, the synthesised and over-detailed content fork articles, The art of Stella Vine and Talks and collaborations by Stella Vine should be selectively merged. Charitable work by Stella Vine has already gone through the AfD process and been merged back into the main article. There is a strong case for taking a closer look at the Stella Vine article itself now a number of years have elapsed since the height of her fame. I can possibly understand the enthusiasm of the original authors, because the article was written close to the height of her notoriety when objectivity was more difficult. Sionk (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Excellent job with the merging and pruning, it is becoming easier to read. I may add back some of the section sub-headings and reorganise things a little bit. The 'Saatchi effect' in particular seems to be a major subject focused on by the press above anything else. The difficulty lies in disentangling this from the counter-claims and point scoring by the Stuckists! Sionk (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look at merging Talks and collaborations by Stella Vine, but it seemed to be an indiscriminate list of occasions where Vine talked at an event or gave an interview to the press. The only significant paragraphs seemed to be the Eden Project work, and her design work for Top Shop, but both of these are already mentioned here. I've redirected the article. --McGeddon (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging other Vine articles 

message: Template:Stella Vine has been nominated for deletion. Sionk (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Stella Vine 

message: Sorry about that, I meant to put a link back to the AfD where I mentioned it, but added the template with a widget and forgot to.
User:Madeofstars spent about a year writing this and other Stella Vine articles, and crowbarring mentions of Vine into tenuously-connected pages - this talk page list from 2009 shows that Madeofstars has shown a strong emotional bias towards Vine and against her detractors, the user briefly self-identified as "a big fan" of Vine, and from other user-talk threads seems to have been personally present at several of Vine's shows, and has been acting as an email go-between to get Wikipedia's permission to use images. Assuming good faith and concluding this is just a Vine superfan who's taken amateur video footage of her shows and wants to fight Vine's corner at Wikipedia, it is potentially close to a "personal connection to a topic or person" and "people with whom you could reasonably be said to have an antagonistic relationship in real life" WP:COS, and we should look at this whole article - and any which we merge into it - on that basis. --McGeddon (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is obvious the original author was heavily biased in favour of Vine, but then that is often the case with new articles about celebs, musicians etc. It's an interesting observation that 'Madeofstars' equals 'Stellar' - presumably you are good at crosswords! I've no great opposition to you adding back the COI tag because, clearly, the article(s) need a lot of editing and clean up to make them encyclopedic. Sionk (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not wish to talk off-topic, but how this individual can qualify as an artist is beyond me. Most junior school students could equal or surpass her "talents". Having said this, there is an element of interesting expressionism in her work.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest tag 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Stella Vine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090504080318/http://www.modernartoxford.org.uk/Exhibitions/Archive/48 to http://www.modernartoxford.org.uk/Exhibitions/Archive/48
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stuckism.com/news.html
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5nfyhjLUW?url=http://www.kallaway.co.uk/pdf/Stella-Vines-Latest-Exhibition.pdf to http://www.kallaway.co.uk/pdf/Stella-Vines-Latest-Exhibition.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509100524/http://www.rosywilde.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/index.html to http://www.rosywilde.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Stella Vine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20080724173231/http://www.defendmusic.com/temposhark.php to http://www.defendmusic.com/temposhark.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified