Talk:Papunya Tula

message: This article desperately needs a picture of an example of this art. Anybody got one with appropriate copyright permissions? Anybody got connections with the people at Papunya Tula Artists Pty Ltd? RayNorris 00:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ray, the issue over copyright is rather sensitive. If the artist is living, copyright remains with them even if you have their painting (as with general intellectual copyright). I would suggest in terms of getting a picture of this type of art, a museum - such as the National Gallery of Australia or Kluge-Ruhe Museum be asked to supply one. Alternatively, Papunya Tula can be emailed and asked if they wanted to have a display painting of theirs up on this entry. Nevertheless, most people know what 'dot art' is and there is an external link to Papunya Tula Ltd.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.232.245 (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Most people" do NOT know what dot art is, and that's a harmful attitude for Wikipedia to have. Encyclopedias can't assume ANY knowledge besides the basic English; that's what Wikipedia is FOR -- people who don't know but wish to find out. 216.231.46.147 (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Example Urgently Needed

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from these URLs: http://www.papunyatula.com.au/history/ and http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/media/archives_2000/papunya_tula. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: I am not sure that Papunya Tula belongs in [Category:Australian Aboriginal artists]. Apologies for removing it and labeling it a minor edit - I see it has been reverted, but I don't agree with the revert. There is a page [List of Australian Indigenous art movements and cooperatives], and if Papunya Tula belongs in [Category:Australian Aboriginal artists] then so does everything on this list. The category Australian Aboriginal artists is clearly filled with individual artists, not co-operatives or art centres. Am I missing the point here? Should there be a category for Australian Indigenous art movements and cooperatives? (Though I believe cooperative is a technical business term which applies to Papunya Tula but not other art centres...) Zaddikskysong (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: My initial thought was that the category shoudl remain because PT is so well known as a collective of artists, but you are right - it isn't a correct use of the category. I would support the category's removal. Incidentally, you are right that PT is a cooperative (I think!). It wasn't the only one - Jirrawun Arts used the same model, but has since been wound up. I'm not sure if there are others using that business model... hamiltonstone (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I am going to try deleting this category again. A collective is very different to a collaborative group, which I think would belong in this category. A collaboration (like Gilbert & George would be considered an "artist" in the sense that they regularly work together on artworks, a collective or a cooperative is an organisation in my eyes and is a very different thing.Zaddikskysong (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories