Talk:Art & Language

message: As a person with an interest in art history I have problems with this page: it is utterly incoherent, and it is totally inaccurate. For example, there is a less than subtle attempt to exclude the founding member, Michael Baldwin, and the current member, Mel Ramsden. This is merely to serve as an example of the absurdities which are, unfortunately, persistent throughout the article (there are countless and less trivial examples)... I hope they will be addressed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.233.89 (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, guess I'll be back by on monday to revert from your unformatted mess.  Cheerio. Syrthiss (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

text: In the spirit of encouraging dialogue: IP address, I don't understand why you think Baldwin and Ramsden are excluded in the article. They are mentioned throughout. You say there are absurdities in the article. Please state here on the talkpage what specifically you want changed and we can consider one thing at a time.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This is an encyclopedia article. References good. Dumping exhaustive lists of exhibitions/awards etc. and removing references bad.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedia article not a resume

message: Ethicoaestheticist: I am already tired of trying to correct your text. I have no desire to list its absurd misapprehensions, omissions and oversights. It is simultaneously provincial and tendentious. In a word: goofy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgpjlggvtp (talk • contribs) 11:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While I appreciate your grasp of big words, if you can cite specific examples where the text is wrong...with references to why it is wrong...I'm sure that the article can be improved.  Otherwise I expect the wall of text will continue to be reverted for the referenced text. Syrthiss (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I have faith in any editor to make changes to the article without my supervision.  Make sure that the material you are putting in is properly sourced, be bold and have at it.  If you don't know how to use the inline references to reference items, you can either stop by my talk page and I can give you some examples or you can just place whatever reference text in parenthesis after the text it is supporting and someone can fix the markup later.  Hope this helps. Syrthiss (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Be bold. You obviously know about the subject. I'm happy to help as well.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  give up 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Art & Language. 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/20060420080300/http://blurting-in.zkm.de:80/ to http://blurting-in.zkm.de
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090601092918/http://frieze.com:80/issue/review/art_language1 to http://www.frieze.com/issue/review/art_language1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090922233350/http://www.frieze.com:80/issue/review/art_language to http://www.frieze.com/issue/review/art_language/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: : I have some concerns about the choices in listing off notable members of the group. The text currently reads:
"Starting at the beginning of the 1970s, individuals such as Ian Burn, Michael Corris, Preston Heller, Graham Howard, Joseph Kosuth, Andrew Menard, Terry Smith and from Coventry Philip Pilkington and David Rushton joined the group."
: Based on the syntax, I am not certain if Philip Pilkington and David Rushton are both from Coventry, or Phillip is the only one. Also, a link to what Coventry is would be appreciated. TheTrashMan (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect A&l. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 23:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A&l listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I am proposing to merge the current article with the one on the magazine, Art-Language. Both articles have a lot of overlap in contents, even using the same image. The difference between the two (& vs -) is a bit too subtle for me, and also for the average reader, I assume. Merging the two will provide for a more complete and coherent article than the current two. --Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *Both articles are currently in a deplorable state. If some of the fluff is cut away, I don't see why the magazine, the movement's mouthpiece, could not be a section in the article on the movement. --Randykitty (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hi  (didn't I sit behind you in homeroom?). I'm not an expert on these topic, but upon skimming the pages the magazine seems quite notable, as does the group. If the lede of the magazine page is to be believed then its influence is historically important and seemingly worthy of its own article. Yes, on a quick read I can see that both articles need work, and will help putter around in them now and then in the short-run, if just to get a mental map of the subjects. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *Upon reading more of it I'm seeing what you mean. Maybe other editors will come by and take a look at the pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *A great example here are the Coen brothers. Each one of them is notable, but we don't have separate articles about them because of the huge overlap. Same here. Both the movement and the magazine appear to be notable, but that doesn't mean that we must have two separate articles. --Randykitty (talk) 07:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

text: *The Coen brothers is indeed a great example against the merging as each one of their films have a separate article. Art & Language is the name of the artists (Coen brothers) and Art-Language is the name of a work of them (The Big Lebowsky for example).--Philippe49730 (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *It is indeed an excellent example, but for merging. Have a look at the actual articles. The article on the Coen brothers mentions their movies, but doesn't give much detail on those. The individual movies have detailed articles about those particular movies. They don't discuss the Coen brothers and the overlap between the biographical article and the movie article is minimal. Now have a look at these two articles. Both are relatively short (not something you can say about the Coen brothers bio and the articles on their movies) and their is a huge overlap in content. That the magazine and the movement somewhat split ways is not a problem, the article on the brothers also discusses their solo work. The question here is not whether the magazine or the group are notable or not. It's whether it is useful to have two separate articles on subjects that are intricately intertwined and hugely overlap (and that overlap cannot be reduced either). --Randykitty (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *The Coen Brothers is an excellent example for NOT merging. Art & Language was a collaborative group of individuals - that is parallel to the Coen Brothers. Art-Language is a thing - a print publication. And that publication was only associated with Art & Language the colab group for 7 of its 20 year run. The other 13 years it was edited and run by people outside of the A&L group. So to compare this situation to the Coen Brothers is like saying "merge the Quay Brothers into the Film Magazine article" (if there were one). It simply does not make sense. The majority of the years A-L was published, it was NOT a project of A&L. What may be confusing to the OP is that the names are similar. Both articles can be cleaned up but that is not a reason to merge. See comment below. Netherzone (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *It is indeed an excellent example for Not merging. We already went through this as a discussion and you are very welcome to expand both of them. The fact is that Art & Language is an artist group and Art-Language is a body of work produced by Art & Language. The journal span over 20 years of production in 19 numbers and to compare with the Coen brothers wikipedia should have one article dedicated to each number of the journal as every single one is a significant release of a significant artist work. I am interested to know where you did read on wikipedia that the length of an article was a quality criteria? --Philippe49730 (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

text: *I have changed my position on this and think the two articles can successfully be merged. I misunderstood something I read about the magazine editorial staff changes, and retract my previous comments on this. Netherzone (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Large blocks of unsourced content regarding living persons have been unsourced for many years, therefore indicating original research WP:OR and/or not complying with WP:NPOV. BLP violations since much of these unsourced additions concern living persons;. Self-sourced content. Maintenance tag for citations for verification repeatedly removed rather than resolving the problems in the article. Netherzone (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Netherzone are these the same blocks of text that have been tagged with citation needed tags? Guidelines clearly say "Redundant issues: Please do not insert tags that are too similar to or redundant with each other. " Why do you want to add another tag? Please explain above what changes you want to the article to remove the COI tag you added earlier.  Remember that a tag is not intended as a badge of shame.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 16:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research