Talk:Landscape painting

message: The bulk of this article as of Jan. 8, 2006 is copied from http://www.rolandlee.com/articles81.html. Sparkit 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it. Sparkit 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: copyvio

message: It seems clear to anyone reading this page that it deals with art, as in paintings, rather than with photography, as in photos. While it is correct to say that photography can require art in its successful execution, photography itself requires no artistic talent and no one would be convinced that common snapshots are anything like art. As a consequence,please place landscape photos under "Photography,landscape" and not on this page, which deals primarily with paintings and related hand-painted art. Jack Bethune 12:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Landscape art vs. landscape photography

message: In my opinion none add anything new or important to this subject and they should be removed...Modernist (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Without accompanying text to clarify their historical significance, these look tacked on. They may be notable artists, but they are not preeminent. Perhaps an example of Shishkin or Levitan, but again, there needs to be content to support inclusion in an article offering historical overview. JNW (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We've had an Arkhip Kuindzhi since the article was created, which given the pressure on space is enough, although one might squeeze in another classic. But a great number of these contemporary realists, added by an editor with a clear COI, cannot be justified. They don't seem very impressive works to me, I must say. Johnbod (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian Landscape

message: I have added topographical view here, and created topographical view as a redirect, so that other articles can be linked to an explanation of the term (instead of being linked to topography).  Anyone who can think of a better place to describe them, or who can write a whole article on them, is welcome to make the appropriate changes. JonH (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topographical view 

message: As far as I can tell he's not notable as an art critic, or as an expert on landscape painting. Please desist in adding the link...Modernist (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Dutton link

message: An image used in this article, File:Jane Frank Dorado No2.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done...Modernist (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Jane Frank Dorado No2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: The lead section should be a summery of the most important facts of the article. Landscape photography has its own article and shouldn't be mentioned so prominently in the lead, especially since its not the focus of this article. Is there any particular reason why you feel that this single sentence increase the reading value of this article?--JOJ Hutton 12:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as alsreay stated in edit summaries - Landscape photography falls under any normal definition of "Landscape art" but is not covered in this article, so needs a link to its own article. This is normal practice & I can't see why you are making such heavy weather of it. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. It's fine as it is, per Modernist above, though photo additions should go at the other article. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not fine as it is because the lead is discussing aspects of another article. Thats the not the scope of the lead section. The lead should serve as a summery of this article and not another. I have introduced and/or supported at least three compromise solutions. All of which are within the guidelines and are reasonable.--JOJ Hutton 15:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Indeed. Johnbod (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: But the lead of this article is suppose to summarize this article. There is nothing in this article about landscape photography. Something could be added, as previously suggested, but the current scope of this article does not include photography so it violates WP:LEAD.JOJ Hutton 01:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it explains the scope, and points to where the other stuff is. Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

text: The sentence prior to the sentence mentioning Landscape photography relates to historical "Landscape art", mentioning a period stretching back 1000 years. Thus the mention of "Landscape photography" is a logical segue into the 19th century and the present time. Thus I don't see the sentence mentioning "Landscape photography" as out of place. But I have a question—why isn't this article titled "Landscape painting"? Bus stop (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure how well that works for Asian ink landscapes, though they are of course paintings. Sculptural reliefs and mosaics are actually quite significant to the early history, though I don't think the article currently has much on them, nor modern Land sculpture etc. But I'd rather keep the broad title so as not exclude these going forward. I dislike the wiki-habit of concentrating on painting to the exclusion of other art - cf our Italian Renaisssance articles etc. Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked myself this same question as well and came to the conclusion that "Landscape Painting" doesn't cover other art forms such as drawing and what not. Still it begs to differ that there still isn't anything in the article related to photography, and no it does not define the scope. The entire sentence sounds robotic. Almost like it was inserted as an afterthought. Especially the part about "covered on another article". Wikipedia articles usually don't break the so called "fourth wall" and say that something is in another article. That's the type of editing I expect from inexperienced users, not seasoned veterans. Then another question arises, why can't there be another article titled "Landscape Painting"? If there is a an article only about photography why couldn't there be an article only about painting? BTW, I originally came to this article by searching "Landscape Painting".JOJ Hutton 01:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And prints of course. "Landscape Painting" redirects here, and it's own article would be imo unecessary duplication, when so many other articles need writing. But you are free to do so if you want. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Could it still not be rewritten to conform to a more encyclopedic tone? "Defining the scope if the article" is fine, but it just sounds wakeful the way it is right now. JOJ Hutton 12:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

text: The word "art" is understood. It doesn't need to be in the title. The title should be more incisive. Paragraphs on techniques that are not, strictly-speaking, painting, could be prefaced with wording allowing for that inconsistency. Bus stop (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

text: * Frankly the consensus is to let the lead alone. The lead is fine - I suggest you move on...Modernist (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm just offering a viable compromise solution that is well within the guidelines of Wikipedia. I think I'll get an WP:RFC going and get some outside opinions, because frankly its not fine.--JOJ Hutton 20:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

text: I've made this edit. It is only for consideration. I don't intend it to be the "final word" on the topic. But I like it because it highlights the term "technique". I think it is unobtrusive, and yet it alerts the reader immediately as it is on top of the article. Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a better header  than what I came up with. I also think that the words Covered in its own article should also be removed since its not encyclopedic. I'll keep the RFC open unless we can come to another compromise. Personally I feel that if this article was to to be presented for Good Article consideration, that phrase would be highly scrutinized.--JOJ Hutton 15:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like an endorsement. Can we have any other responses from any other concerned editors? Bus stop (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well lets see if User:Modernist and User:Johnbod have an opinion on this compromise.--JOJ Hutton 22:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't like it I'm afaraid. Anyway, I don't see LP as a "technique" though it may involve various techniques. Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Landscape painting. 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/20081029150405/http://www.abbeville.com/factsheets/F06_Fctsht_Landscapes.pdf to http://www.abbeville.com/factsheets/F06_Fctsht_Landscapes.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090301110749/http://www.learnpainting.net/paintingdemonstrations/ to http://www.learnpainting.net/paintingdemonstrations/
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) 18:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This page is overillustrated and could use some cuts.  talk 06:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: From the East Asian tradition it seems OK overall. But the whole Western tradition section could use better integration of pantings into the text (and less image sandwiching). Would suggest removing the Eckenbrecher to help prevent all the images from being pushed below the sections the text they actually relate to (because that's what's happening on my screen). Aza24 (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really on mine. People use so many different screen sizes and shapes, and size settings, that one can't make articles ideal for everyone. Plus most readers are using mobiles these days, where the view is wholly different.  (Re)moving the very vertical Dongtian Mountain Hall might help, but it is a good typical image.  Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, but it's usually not that difficult to try and satisfy at least most screens. I just tried to move things around, feel free to revert. I put the Renaissane paintings in their section and removed the Li Cheng (its already below) and Dong Yuan (too vertical). And now we have room to put a proto-landscape from the middle ages (which there were none of before) and another Renaissance painting (maybe that early Leonardo sketch?) Aza24 (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't say I find that an improvement myself. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overillustrated