Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Archive 2

message: Does this project have a template to put at the top of articles that should be a part of this project?  I have created a few articles that are related to this project. 2 are of particular interest and import here Haystacks (Monet) and Campbell's Soup Cans.  How do I affiliate them with this project? TonyTheTiger 15:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Visual arts Tags 

message: Relevant featured article being reviewed.  Thanks. Chick Bowen 02:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Diego Velázquez]] 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Campbell's Soup Cans is a featured article candidate.  Leave comments here.  Note I have done much editing since some of the current comments. TonyTheTiger 17:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campbell's Soup Can's FAC 

message: I went ahead and created a project template: 
It generates this: 
I also created a project userbox: 
It generates: 
I'm open to suggestions for improvement. More to come! Planetneutral 04:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few new things 

message: This needs input. Tyrenius 00:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American artists]]

message: I have started a draft one at - (now out of Sandbox at:) List of Printmakers - comments please! I'm not sure about the layout myself, although I do think a chronological approach is right.  There is a discussion of the idea two sections up.  I also started this one: User:Johnbod/List of printmakers but decided the format was too complicated for a fluid list. At the moment I haven't put headings in for Japanese Ukiyo-e artists, but they should probably either have their own list of go here. There are 35 pages in the "Ukiyo-e artists" category, plus 24 in the "Japanese printmakers". Johnbod 22:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'd agree with just putting the nationality on each line for the later periods - after 1700 maybe, or 1800. Except maybe for the Japanese, who (if not in their own list) logically go in their own section - maybe divided by school. For the earlier periods it's not such a problem - I've put Northern rather than German for the C15 for example. I also think that contemporary printmakers, who will end up being much the largest group, should perhaps be divided by continents say, and then alphabetically. I'd prefer to stick to chronological sequence pre-1700 at least - there won't be so many people that finding them would be a problem. Or they could all be alphabetic, but in that case I think the dates are important. I don't think there's a problem using slightly different arrangements for different periods. I may do some sections in different styles for comparison - or anyone else please feel free to do so, but leave edit summaries explaining what you're doing Johnbod 16:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *One other thought (perhaps a crazy one)!  Is there any way to create a button in Wikipedia to allow people to sort a page in different ways?  For example, if we entered three types of information for an artist - their nationality, period and type of printmaking - could we set it up so that the user could sort the page in their preferred way (kind of like the way you can sort search results on Amazon - by 'bestselling' 'cheapest' 'most popular,' etc.)?  It might make this whole page a lot easier in the end (although perhaps a bit more complicated in the short term)?  Any thoughts?  Merteuil 05:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this lies some way ahead technically - I've not seen anything like it on WP. Johnbod 16:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No this is possible, see Help:Sorting, or Ranked list of Dutch provinces for an example --Donar Reiskoffer 13:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: OK thanks - that would be the ideal then  Johnbod 13:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've just seen "Liste de graveurs français" on the French Wiki - a similar solution (not with sorting).  Johnbod 19:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've been looking at it, & whilst it is tempting, I have to agree.  It is clearly harder for people to add to - many just wouldn't bother, or would make mistakes that would I suppose make the page look wierd. As you say the techniques are a problem - I suppose you could have Wo, Eng, Et, Other, but it's not ideal.  Some countries would also be tricky - Belgian/Flemish, Dutch/Netherlandish, British/English/Scots/Welsh etc - if you have headings that is limited to some extent.  Reluctantly I think it might be overambitious - especially I think many people would just avoid editing it.  If we had all the printmakers on I think it might make a big file-size for the page.  Certainly more maintenance would be needed.
I've changed parts of the sandbox list from sections to just headers, which I think is better - it certainly cuts the size of the contents box down.  Johnbod 09:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed re key - I meant to do that. I think it should be a bit more populated before it hits the mainspace, but please anybody add names to it (link again: List of Printmakers). I will tidy up the headings, on the C17 model, & do the key etc, unless anyone beats me to it.  We should be able to take it public this week.   Thanks, Johnbod 17:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Just be careful with the ukiyo-e -- not every ukiyo-e painter did prints. LordAmeth 09:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: At the moment there is just a reference to the partial lists at the ukiyo-e article. I wasn't planning to change that, as schools rather than dates seems to be the primary classification (?) & they are obviously all the same technique & country. I don't have any "modern" Japanese printmakers on the list as yet though.  Johnbod 21:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandbox List of Printmakers 

message: Would appreciate your input. Planetneutral 18:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jørgen_Mahler_Elbang]] 

message: Again, your input is appreciated. Planetneutral 03:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has been speedy-deleted. Tyrenius 00:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simon_Mitchell]] 

message: I seem to be on a roll with these, as I explore some of the top level categories. Your input is appreciated. Planetneutral 20:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karl_Kenda]] 

message: Three Polish artists were nominated yesterday: Magdalena Trzebiatowska, Jacek Yerka, and Katarzyna Kozyra. Tyrenius 23:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfDs

message: Please post to and watchlist the above as a central notice board. Tyrenius 01:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts]]

message: I've made a few tweaks to the  project template, most notably introducing a class attribute. Class can be set to one of these parameters: FA, A, GA, B, Start or Stub, based on Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#Grades. Since we have no formal assessment process, I encourage editors to make an educated go at it. Discussion can always take place here or on the article's talk page. Some WikiProjects incorporate a separate comments page strictly for assessment. We're certainly nowhere near needing that apparatus. Perhaps someday we'll have a critical mass and can start incorporating more formal assessment processes.
The template is also set up with a priority (often called importance) attribute, but I've commented it out for now for a few reasons. Priority assignments can be controversial and I didn't want to introduce that complexity without discussion here. Also, given how few people are actively involved with this project, I'm not sure we really need to devote attention to assigning priorities at this point.
I also introduced a cat attribute. If applying the project template to a cat (i.e., cat=yes), different verbiage will appear and there is no need to set a class attribute.
If you are working on an article within the scope of this project, I heartily encourage you to add the  template. We really need more people involved in the good work we're doing here and this is a key recruiting tool. 
If there is a talk page with multiple WikiProject banners and it seems to be out of control, note that there's a  template you can use to consolidate them. See it in use on Talk:Benvenuto_Cellini. Planetneutral 17:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project template 

message: Discussion is going on about establishing notability guidelines for artists and/or painters. Notability (people)/Wikipedia:Notabilty (artists).
>>sparkit|TALK<< 17:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about establishing notability guidelines for artists/painters 

message: Hi, can someone knowledgable please have a look over this new article by a newcomer: The Reformation and Art. May need some streamlining. Thanks! Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After a (very) quick read, the basic info and formatting seems fine. The actual content of The Reformation and Art is clearly written and seems factual (again, I only read it quickly). I'm not that informed on Counter-Reformation Art, so I can't speak of that. I will try and go over it in a few hours and give it a close read. Freshacconci 17:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a bit on it - I did'nt think it was very high quality  Johnbod 17:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks guys. That's a fast wikiproject for once. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Reformation and Art]] 

message: Voting for Picture of the Year (the final) takes place from 17 Feb to 28 Feb (inclusive).
The winners will be announced on 3 March after complete verification of history logs.
Commons:Picture of the Year/2006
[>>sparkit|TALK<<] 14:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikicommons picture of the year voting 

message: Greetings. I have couple of lists of missing topics in arts and a contributor recommended that I could mention it here. I have tried to find any similar articles (with a help of couple of other editors) but I'd appreciate if others could have a look at the lists. - Skysmith 09:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite a list! I added some links and comments. Is this the start of a comprehensive list of missing visual arts articles? --[>>sparkit|TALK<<] 23:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it is as comprehensive as I can make it. Unfortunately I don't think I'm qualified to write about all of these - Skysmith 13:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing topics 

message: Question in a nutshell: How does one determine the most commonly used appellation for an artist, in order to determine the best article title? This really piggybacks off my recent question about sort order for Italian artists. In working on determining proper defaultsort for Italian artists, I'm noticing that the Getty Index will have an altogether different preferred name (or a variation in spelling) for that artist from the one being used as the title of the Wikipedia article. 
Should I move the article in those cases? Is the Getty Index the right source to dictate that? Should I be cross-referencing with other sources such as Grove Art? What if there's a conflict there? Is there a place for something as simplistic as number of Google hits? 
Or is it largely better to avoid moving pages (assuming I take care of double redirects and the like), even if a reliable source like the Getty Index indicates a different name is preferred? What would be your strategy? Planetneutral 22:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have argued in various cases for going with Getty - I've not yet seen one where I would prefer any other title to their preferred name, though of course it might be possible. See Andrea Meldolla, Giorgio Orsini, and Giulio Clovio - all subjects of Italian/Croatian/Dalmatian national passions, as you will see if you can face the talk pages (not recommended).  Getty has a very appropriate methodology & is continually updated, so I think it is normally a very appropriate guide for us - much better than ghits etc.  Johnbod 23:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: Quite often the name in the "home" language of the artist is different from the "most commonly used term in English" if that is still the WP guideline quote. See Palazzo del Te for a rather unexpected example (building not artist obviously) that is currently under discussion for a name move.  Johnbod 01:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Getty seems like a solid resource to me, though I'm not up on what all the options are. Off the top of my head I'm thinking Getty with other online encyclopedias as back up. I don't trust the "google hits test" because it turns up too many wikipedia mirrors and folks are turning to wikipedia as "the" reference - despite all the craziness on wikipedia :). [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 02:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artist naming conventions 

message: A new proposal for assessing artist notability: Wikipedia:Notability (artists) [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 05:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed artist notability guidelines 

message: Sparkit and I had a brief discussion today about the images used for the Template:Visual arts  and Portal:Visual arts/Intro .
We both agree (and Sparkit, let me know if I'm mischaracterizing your thoughts) that the Van Gogh image doesn't really work well at the small size and neither of us cares for the palette graphic. I'd like to find an image that will work well in both contexts and has an iconic quality to it. If you have any thoughts on a better image, please share.
Also, I've been doing some work on the portal page. I don't really care for the color scheme, but am not sure I have any ideas for improvement. Any one else feel the same way about the color scheme? If you're feeling bold, go to Portal:Visual_arts/box-header and try something different. I'll be playing in my sandbox. Cheers, Planetneutral 03:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A few options for the portal/template image are on display here. Planetneutral 04:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I came across that same eye with the purple background the other day when I first started thinking about using an eye for a visual arts icon. :) And as much as I like that image, I like the hand-with-eye better for a portal and project icon because the work of the visual artist so intensely involved their hands and eyes, as well as the eyes of the viewer. The story that goes with the symbol is cool, too – Hamsa – telling us, among other things, that it's an ancient symbol. The image file is kinda fuzzy, but if we like this symbol, I can make a sharper one. [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 05:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made almost exactly the same comments on the Portal talk:Visual arts page. Yes, a sharper version of that image would be excellent. Planetneutral 11:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the new banner pic!  Johnbod 21:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur! I'm going to test it in other contexts. Sparkit, that looks like the original pic. Do you anticipate finding a sharper, yet similarly suitable image? Planetneutral 21:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the original pic. I've since created and uploaded one that's a little sharper. I'll probably fiddle with it some more, but here it is. --sparkitTALK 22:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Loves it! Wish it would scale a little better for the portal page though. Anything that can be done toward that end? Planetneutral 23:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doh! I originally uploaded my smaller test file. It's replaced with a bigger one now. You might have to refresh your cache to see the new one. --sparkitTALK 23:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal/template image and portal in general 

message: The bot User:Alphachimpbot tagged this article to be a visual artist Ahmed Akkari. I fail to see how this man is considered a visual artist. His primary creation was a dossier based on newspaper clipings Akkari-Laban dossier. This he made together with another  imam 
I would like that some on from this project review the article in question and estimate wether is is within the scope of the project.
Happy editing -Angelbo 20:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No question, it's mistagged. I'm not clear how the bot got there. I'll fix it. Thanks for pointing it out. Looks like I'll have some follow-up work to do. Planetneutral 20:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the quick response, then Can I asume that theese are also mistagged: Islamisk Trossamfund, Jyllands-Posten, Economic and human costs of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, List of newspapers that reprinted Jyllands-Posten's Muhammad cartoons, Descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons, Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Islamist demonstration outside Danish Embassy in London in 2006 and Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy   Regards and happy editing -Angelbo 20:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Folks, what we have here is a bot gone wild. I have to chat with the bot's operator and see what happened. If you look at the bot's contributions, you'll see a lot of false hits, none of which I can identify as falling into any of the requested cats or subcats: (:Category:Artistic techniques, :Category:Italian artists, :Category:French artists and :Category:American artists). Something is amiss. Any help identifying what categories were hit in error would be appreciated. Planetneutral 21:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, the above articles were tagged, because :Category:Jyllands-Posten cartoons controversy is listed as a subcat of :Category:Caricature, which is a subcat of :Category:Artistic techniques. I didn't actually request the subcats of Artistic techniques, but the bot operator tried to carefully select some of the subcats to include. This was one of the missteps in that process. I believe there are some others, so I will be reviewing the bot's work. Again, assistance in that regard is appreciated. Planetneutral 21:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's one busy bot. :) We've got quite a pile of articles flagged now. Thanks Planetneutral! --sparkitTALK 22:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Alphachimpbot tagged this article too: Cut-up technique. I'm not sure if this is a case of a bot gone wild or a human gone wild. A human may have considered "cut-up technique" to be art-like. But I don't think it really is. Bus stop 22:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's categorised as a "surrealist technique" or something, which is a sub-cat of "artistic techniques", which is a Visual arts category.  Johnbod 14:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've since come to understand the reason that a non-visual art article was tagged as being a visual arts article. The problem results from there being "surrealist techniques" in visual arts, as well as "surrealist techniques" in the literary arts. I think a solution could be to break down "surrealist techniques" into two categories: "surrealist techniques in the visual arts," and "surrealist techniques in literature." Bus stop 15:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would work, except that on a quick look many seem to be both - there are perhaps only 2 exclusively literary, & no doubt a true Surrealist would object to that categorisation. I'm not sure what the solution is - I'm tempted to say just untag the article & let matters rest. Johnbod 15:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article tagged by BOT

message: I've never found a template specific to images of art, so I've made one. If there's one somewhere else, please let me know, so's we don't have multiples. Template:Image information art. To see how it looks on an image page, go to Image:Masson automatic drawing.jpg --sparkitTALK 15:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template for art images 

message: I'm putting this article at the mercy of this project and project members. There is a rare term used to describe visual art with a more universal meaning that another user is trolling over-scrutinizing as if there is some harm in it being an article.  The troll disputor nominated it for AfD, and the result was to "keep".  The user then used WP:POINT disruptive editing to make a point.
It's not likely that visual artists will use the term to describe what they do, but it is likely that clients or business administrators will use it to describe visual art. The term is "Image development".  I would be OK with just letting the image development (disambiguation) page define the term, but the term is used as an umbrella term as well as a synonym for the individual forms of image development. Readers often assume that disambiguated articles are mutually exclusive uses of a term, which is not the case with umbrella terms. 
I considered including it in the main visual arts article, but the umbrella term has a somewhat broader meaning than just the artistic usage. If you read the archived talk page you will see the struggle against the troll disputor. Thetroll disputor is taking advantage of the fact that art is not natural science and is scrutinizing the article as if it is describing natural science. Since art, by nature, relies on POV and interpretation, it only makes sense that art-related wikipedia articles are mostly WP:POV. The troll disputor strategy is to accuse POV of being synthesis and original research. If this is allowed, other important art-related articles on the wikipedia may be reduced to just a bibliography or deleted.
The term can easily be called  neologism, but so can the pairing of any other two words. It's unlikely that a secondary source has defined the term because its definition in context is obvious. The WP:NEO policy says to avoid neologism, but this is a case of no better alternative, if you can even call a phrase with two dictionary defined terms neologism. The term isn't used often, but when used in context, it makes more sense than any alternative. Terms like this are needed to bridge the gap between rigid computer science language and artistic language. Otherwise, people just assume that visual art and graphic visualization are incompatible.
If enough other members of this project feel that the article should be merged or left as a disambiguation page, I will comply. If anyone on this project understands the need for it the way I do, please help defend it against the trolling by editing the article or disputing the troll overly-scrutinizing arguments. Oicumayberight 23:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please avoid personal attacks, such as referring to other users as trolls. Grouse 02:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. Just got carried away. I was trying to avoid mentioning names while explaining the nature of the disputes. Oicumayberight 04:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article at the mercy of this project

message: Just thought I'd let you know that I requested a portal peer review for the Visual arts portal. If you haven't checked out the portal lately, I invite you to do so and, if you're so inclined, add your comments to the peer review. Cheers, Planetneutral 04:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal peer review 

message: Add comments in support or opposition at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 22:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Campbell's Soup Cans]] FAC2 notice 

message: Having responded to the comments of the peer review, the Portal:Visual arts is now a featured portal candidate. Your input on the nomination would be appreciated. Cheers. Planetneutral 05:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured portal candidate 

message: The main Visual arts article could use some improvement, and it seems an important high-level article especially in the light that the portal (Portal:Visual arts) will soon reach featured status and the first link on the portal page is visual arts.
Discussion about the article is ongoing at Talk:Visual_arts#Plan_of_Action_for_Improvement. Thanks! --sparkitTALK 16:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improve the [[Visual arts]] article? 

message: In the Vintage Nude Photographs section on wikicommons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Vintage_nude_photographs I am concerned about several photos that I believe consitute Child Pornography. I believe that these photos should be removed to avoid potential legal trouble for wikipedia. -Vcelloho 02:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like you might have a valid concern there, but I'm not sure this is the avenue to do something about it. I'm not sure what is though, not being as familiar with the Commons. Planetneutral talk 02:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe start with the deletion guidelines there. Planetneutral talk 02:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no one would respond to it on the proximent talk page and since the wikipedia article on the history of nude depictions falls under this project I decided to bring this issue over to this discussion board. -Vcelloho 02:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not aquainted with common's either I was hoping that someone over here might be able to handle this for me. -Vcelloho 02:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe someone will be willing to devote that time and energy, but my experience is that if you feel something should happen on Wikipedia, you need to make it happen yourself. Since the pics that you are worried about are on the Commons and do not appear in the History of erotic depictions entry, it doesn't seem to fall within the scope of this project, although I certainly understand why you came here. My only advice is to be bold. Buona fortuna! Planetneutral talk 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've decided to contact an administrator for further help but thank you for your advice. -Vcelloho 02:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A great idea. (Wish I'd thought of it!) Planetneutral talk 02:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The 3 Marconi's on the main page (& in his sub-cat) should certainly go, & maybe some Galdis. Johnbod 03:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal Concerns

message: Comment invited on the colour choice for this template. Tyrenius 05:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template talk:Young British Artists]]

message: Chinese painting needs your help! While a number of individual artists have pretty solid articles,  Chinese painting is sorely lacking. (firstly, Chinese Painting Arts needs to be merged in.) Most of the related overview articles, such as History of Chinese art, Chinese porcelain, Chinese architecture, and Chinese music... Please help in whatever way you can. We don't need massive opuses on each period or style or school, but a good solid summary with a link to the main article for each of these things would be wonderful.
The same really ought to be done for Japanese painting, Korean painting, and likely other national overview articles. For these countries as well, the "History of ... art" articles are fairly solid, but the length and quality of the separate articles by medium (i.e. painting) really need work. These are major subjects, major foundational articles which I think should be of a high priority for the Project, no?
 
Thank you! LordAmeth 11:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've merged them, though it could use more scrutiny. BTW: Is there a lacquerware article somewhere? Everything seems to link to Lacquer which barely touches on the artistic aspect. --sparkitTALK 14:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help. I have not come across any lacquerware articles... wow. Well, I'll leave myself a note to start articles on Japanese laquerware and Okinawan laquerware, though I'm not sure how much I'll manage to do... I've also been meaning to create one for urushi-e (painting with lacquer). Thanks for reminding me about that. LordAmeth 14:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese painting 

message: Thought you might be interested to see that the Portal:Visual arts is now featured. Cheers. Planetneutral talk 08:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for all your work driving the portal to featuredom! --sparkitTALK 16:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed  Johnbod 19:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hip, Hip, Hooray! Hip, Hip, Hooray! Hip, Hip, Hooray! Bus stop 19:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal 

message: I would like to create a simple "List of American Artists" page. In the past, administrators have deleted attempts to maintain such a page, due to lack of structure. (see the discussion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American artists). There are in fact dozens of lists on Wikipedia that list artists by nationality, and the absesce of a list for American artists seems to me to be an oversight. There is a "category" of American Artists, but there is no structure at all to this page, outside of listing artists alphabetically -- irresepective of dates and media. After a couple of attempts to create a better structured "list" page, I've had some exchanges with administrator Tyrenius, who suggested that a better structured list could be approved, and that I should seek input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts. I've written out a page, and am outlining my ideas here, and requesting input.
Among the concerns are that the quantity of artists could get out of hand, not only because of "non-notable entries," but also because the term "artist" can be seen as very broad. I would like to create a page simply dedicated to "fine artists" in the "visual arts," as described below.
The header would be as follows:
<BR><BR>
----
LIST of AMERICAN ARTISTS<BR><BR>
This is a list of historically recognized American " fine artists" known for the creation of artworks that are primarily visual in nature, such as painting, sculpture, photography, printmaking, installation art, avant-garde performance art, and experimental film.
Add names in alphabetical order, and please include biographical dates and the media most notably associated with each artist. 
-----<BR>
All the artists I intend to list initially are already represented in individual pages. Also, the list would be divided up into specific periods, as follows:
American Artists born before 1800<BR>
American Artists born 1800–1899<BR>
American Artists born 1900–1929<BR>
American Artists born 1930–1959<BR>
American Artists born 1960–1989<BR>
<BR>
An example of how the list would appear would be as follows:
<BR><BR>
American Artists born 1900–1929
------------------------
*A
Ansel Easton Adams (1902-1984), photographer<BR>
Walter Inglis Anderson (1903-1965), painter<BR>
Ida Applebroog (1929-), painter
... and so forth
Tyrenius suggested the possibility of dividing the 20th century into 4 periods; after some experimenting, I came to feel that dividing the century into 3 periods reflects the "generations" of artists in a much more traditionally "historical" way, in that it tends to keep artists together who are generally considered to be contemporaries of one another. 
I'm looking for input from those interested. I can put up the page as described above at any time. I've created a talk page for this issue at:
Talk:List_of_American_artists
Thanks!
(Trackway 00:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of American Artists

message: Please continue the discussion at Talk:List_of_American_artists to keep it in one place. Tyrenius 01:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion