Talk:Lost artworks

message: It is specifically about artworks, and the scope stops at the point where something is not notable for being artwork or the event is not notable because of its effect on artwork (i.e. the loss of a notable work or the loss of a notable number of less notable works). Libraries have their own article listing page as do treasures.
* eta a new article on Lost relics is probably needed JBVaughan (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not a catch-all article for lost valuable things ... 

message: I've spent about two days breaking the long extended blocks of points out into individual tabled artwork items (and created a section for notable loss events), originally just to enable sorting. However, the more I try to normalize usage and tighten the text as well as complete the table, include images and links, the more I am finding pieces that are not, in fact, missing (someone seems to have thought, at some point, that the article was about works of art with "Lost" in the title). This article desperately needs a ton of checking and editing and referencing. I'll do what I can but getting tired. Hope the articke structure provided and the table structure helps to further clean it up and ensure accuracy JBVaughan (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy, Checking, and Editing

message: Proposed Convention: There are hundreds of thousands of documented lost works but, as the threshold for content in wikipedia is notability, it seems clear that the basic logic of the current list (of a few hundred) is that the work is notable at the international level and/or has it's own article or content/section in an artist's article (or content in the loss institution's article) reflecting notability. The table could be reasonably expected to contain links to notable lost works documented elsewhere on wikipedia to the tune of a thousand items. That is a big table, but not unheard of. However, it should be as concise and efficient as possible at that size, conveying to the reader identification of "notable lost-ness" (in art) and links to further content, but not much more than that (which specificity would fall beyond the scope of the article as a high-level entry-point for learning about lost artworks and into specificity about an artist, a work, or a location). In the cases where the work title does not yet link out to another, more detailed, narrative description, this seems to be a matter of finding the existing content (there is tons of content already on wikipedia not yet linked to, working on it) or setting up new content which should be created as it meets the wikipedia guidelines. Therefore, because detailed narrative for each piece exists, or should be made to exist, the table does not need to contain extensive description, particularly statements of notability (i.e. "Statue of Zeus at Olympia, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World" or extensive provenance notes) because linked inclusion in the table establishes notability. This can reduce the display length of each item from 3 or 4 to 1 or 2 lines, effectively halving the visual size and tightening up spatial parameters that may enable better display of images and rapid information access and readability.JBVaughan (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am working on cleaning data (adding dates and links) and will reduce where possible (i.e. shorten descriptive content that repeats on the linked out page).JBVaughan (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Some new item pages or sections in existing artist pages will likely need to be created and content moved from this page to those.JBVaughan (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Notable Lost Works: Style/Editing Logic

message: This article needs some coverage of the Momart fire (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/britartfire/0,,1226860,00.html) that destroyed works by Tracy Emin and other British artists. --Dominic Sayers 11:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, will add. MakeRocketGoNow 13:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Momart fire

message: With a few possible (and highly disputed) exceptions, such as "Hermes with the Infant Dionysus" we have no classical or pre-classical (that is, predating 300 B.C.) Greek statues that can be attributed with reasonable certainty to a named master. There are many references to classical master sculptors in ancient literature (e.g. Phidias, Lysimachos) but no certain original works. Any attribution of specific Parthenon sculptures to Phidias is just legendary. There are also sculptures we know existed because later copies/paraphrases have survived, but very rarely do we have original and copy of the same motive. 83.254.146.108 (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek sculpture 

message: This page says that the painting, "Apollo Guarding the Herds of Admetus and Mercury Stealing Them" is lost, whereas on the page for the artist Claude Lorrain we see an image of this same picture. The source file for that image says that the original is currently in the Galleria Doria Pamphilj, in Rome. Do you have a source that says it is lost? Cottonshirtτ 10:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been three months. Since neither this article nor the one on Holker Hall have a source for the claim that this painting was ever even there, much less destroyed by fire in 1871, I am deleting it from this article. Cottonshirtτ 13:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this really lost? 

message: The article on Bonfire of the Vanities says that "the historical record on this is not clear". Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paintings on "pagan" subjects by Sandro Botticelli, who burned them 

message: Enemy action?  Whose enemy?  POV, surely?
Same for Saint Gregory Praying for Souls in Purgatory and The Destruction of Niobe's Children. Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The Martyrdom of Erasmus'' 

message: I don't know if this counts; Laura Knight's "No 1 Dressing Room" was damaged beyond repair in a fire and repainted, with some small variations, by the artist:
http://worldsfamouspictures.tumblr.com/post/71891547242/dressing-for-the-ballet-by-laura-knight-we-have
so the original is gone, but not completely lost!
Notjim (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What an absolutely fascinating read. I'd love to include it, but fear a citation to tumblr might be beyond the pale for Wikipedians, though I think its quite acceptable in this case. I created the first article on a Laura Knight painting, Ruby Loftus Screwing a Breech Ring, earlier this week. Knight deserves more attention. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Laura Knight

message: Will start tabling the list in sortable format.JBVaughan (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Tabling the List

message: Might end up linking to or becoming separate articles.JBVaughan (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Set this up as a section with subsections, which could then be linked to from the items table, but it is going to make the article too long and the stylist and editing consideration overly complex... so changing strategy to turn it into a timeline that links to other articles and article sections. JBVaughan (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on Notable Loss Events needed

message: I don't have enough direct professional contact to know which agencies are doing this (know there is one big one for holocaust reparations but can't even remember the name). Can anybody help?JBVaughan (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Section needed on who maintains Lists of lost artworks

message: Following text removed from the main list of notable artworks as it is not at the same level of notability as the rest, could be included in the article once a means of handling less notable items is developed (is this here because it represents a notable and currently active search?) JBVaughan (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability Issues

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Lost artworks's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "images":
From Bridgewater House, Westminster: 
From Walters Art Museum: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Lost artworks]] 

message: ..is of course nearly all "missing", but major icons that should be mentioned are those of Camuliana, the Image of Edessa and the Hodegetria. Also the mosaics lost in 1922 or thereabouts in the Great Thessaloniki Fire of 1917 at Hagios Demetrios. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Camuliana, Image of Edessa, and Hodegetria are in but loss event unknown for the later. JBVaughan (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Byzantine art

message: I think it would make more sense to order these by the date of the loss, not the date of the artwork's creation as they currently are, because in many instances you have multiple losses in one tragic event and of course they often were created during different years.  I think it makes sense to keep these together to show them as one loss, but that really isn't possible unless the order format is changed. Some people have already figured this out, and that is why you have all the losses from Sept 11th and the London fire grouped together.  Otherwise, you end up with what you have now, which is a mixture of both order methods.  Also, I think it is more important to highlight when they were lost rather than when they were made.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.0.190 (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing order (obsolete discussion) 

message: Is it seriously true that no notable artworks were lost in the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  The article has no mention of either.  Or don't Japanese artworks count?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hiroshima? 

message: A bot or a person has added a tag requesting the list 'Chronology of Loss Events' be "improved" to a sortable table format but this should not be done for the following reasons:
# The dates of the loss events extend well before the common era and often represent a range without date specificity, therefore they cannot be sorted automatically by a table. It is clear the list is a chronology arranged in date order from the list title.
# The Loss Event name is effectively an assigned title for the event enabling a link to content about the event in other articles and providing a standardized name for the event to be referred to in the sortable table(s) in the next section(s) and sorting them alphabetically is useless.JBVaughan (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the list to table request tag for following reasons 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lost artworks. 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/20120406035346/http://cdm16245.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/p132501coll33 to http://cdm16245.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/p132501coll33
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) 14:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello there. Just a minor change in the title itself. Instead of the name "Lost artworks" rename it into "List of lost artworks" please. So that it can be "collected" with other articles of the same nature, such as the "List of lost films" and "List of lost or unfinished animated films". Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown contributor123 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a minor change. 

message: In 2012 Islamists attacked the National Museum of the Maldives and destroyed virtually all of the remaining Buddhist heritage of the Maldives. I should think that this event ought to be included, but perhaps these objects were not sufficiently notable as art?Bill (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Maldives

message: Does any notable artwork that was lost and later rediscovered qualify, or does the rediscovery itself need to have been a notable event?  For example, Venus Callipyge is certainly notable, and it was lost and then found, but it seems no one took much notice of the loss or the rediscovery because it wasn't a famous work yet.  Should examples like this be added to the list or not? -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think antiquities "lost" and much later excavated should be included - otherwise all classical sculptures could go in. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  How are we defining a "notable find?"