References for descriptions?

Art critics and historians seldom describe the appearance of the works they write about in much detail. However, a description of a work of art can be very welcome to someone whose sight is less than perfect. Is there any policy or guidance about including description of a work in a Wikipedia article where that description relies on what a sighted editor can plainly see rather than on a published source? If there is no such policy or guidance, would it be worthwhile providing some? -- Frans Fowler (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

This would be such a useful guideline to develop, for both the access reasons you describe, and also for broader questions of when a single work of art needs to be described in prose for clarity of the article but has only been written about in less physical terms (e.g, critical metaphors, broad stylistic/thematic terms). Sometimes it is genuinely necessary to source descriptions from historians/critics, as there are things that could easily be misinterpreted, but there are so many cases where an object/artwork can be so straightforwardly described that no authoritative, notable, or reliable source has ever bothered to do it in depth, but it needs to be described in an article. I would think any guideline would need to be clear that there's a fine line between describing the physical/visual nature of an artwork and becoming an impromptu critic who is writing a creative review of the work of art (similar to but distinct from the guidelines for describing the plots of movies and television shows). For other folks watching this WP talk page, this is exactly the kind of style/structure conundrum I was referencing generally in my above discussion about sources/etc. Thanks for flagging this, Frans Fowler! 19h00s (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@7 pm. Precisely! Thank you.

Could you please indicate where to find the guidelines for describing the plots of movies and television shows that you suggest might offer a starting-point or model?

Actually, I was rather hoping there wasn't a policy or guideline for descriptions of works of visual art, and that the Community's answer to whether it would be worthwhile to provide one would be "no, leave it to common sense". But of course I don't want to fall foul of any consensus. -

Frans Fowler (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@Frans Fowler I believe this is the relevant page for plot summaries, with more guidelines in the MOS. And yeah, I think common sense would apply in most cases - it’s not always necessary to provide visual descriptions and a sourced description is preferred, but unsourced descriptions could be allowable for access reasons or where the information/attributes are so obvious to anyone able to see the object that it would be trivial to cite. In the long term it might be useful to think about developing something firmer, but right now common sense seems a good route! 19h00s (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Technically, on Wikipedia you don't have to cite things that are generally considered common knowledge. (WP:NOTCITE). When I write descriptions of artworks, I generally don't cite very obvious general descriptions (e.g. "the painting depicts a tree in a field") as I consider that to be common knowledge that anyone can learn from simply looking at the artwork. I always cite for details that are not extremely obvious, such as specific details about the subject (e.g. "the tree depicted is a yellow pine) or composition (e.g. "the scene in painting is arranged according to the rule of thirds"). GranCavallo (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Stuff like where the description relies on what a sighted editor can plainly see sounds like WP:BLUE stuff. A picture of a cat that most everyone sighted would describe as a picture of a cat verifies itself. Ifly6 (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all for offering your helpful perspectives. I find this from WP:NOTCITE particularly apposite: "If the subject of the article is [an...] artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details. It should be obvious to potential readers that the subject of the article is the source of the information." I should hope any more specific guideline would at least allow enough latitude to distinguish, say, the particular "Portrait of an Unknown Man", "Susanna and the Elders", or Rembrandt self-portrait one is writing about (including uncontroversial merits) from all the other unknown men, bathing Susannas, or self-portraits by Rembrandt out there—especially if the usual reliable sources from less access-conscious times give little succour. ---Frans Fowler (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Art equity

The article Art equity has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved dictionary definition for 8 years. No reliable sources that I could find define this phrase in this way; some sources refer to it as in representation. No obvious target exists to merge and/ or redirect.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done Peaceray (talk) 05:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Peaceray I don't see that you've edited the article. Did you mean to object to the PROD? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

 Undone at the request of SilverLocust. I had failed to let the PROD run its course. Peaceray (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Allegory of Painting (Artemisia Gentileschi)#Requested move 16 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Allegory of Painting (Artemisia Gentileschi)#Requested move 16 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 17 § Years in art → Years in visual arts

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 17 § Years in art → Years in visual arts, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Ham II (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Statue of Unicorn Gundam

Statue of Unicorn Gundam is at AfD, if any project members are interested in weighing in or improving the article. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Kept ---Another Believer _(Talk) 11:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Statue of Pope John XXIII

Statue of Pope John XXIII is being considered for merging, if any project members are interested in weighing in or improving the article. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Thanasis Deligiannis declined (Venice Biennale artist)

Hi everyone, can someone help me improve this article? It has been declined with the comment "The sources are too trivial to establish notabiliity." I am a bit stuck of how to improve the sources. The artist was featured in Venice Biennale (Greek pavilion, national participation) and I've added a citation from their official website and e-flux. I have a feeling the reviewer is not familiar with the fine arts and/or music world. Any help would be more than welcome. I am working on my next article, but this has somehow demotivated me. Kamien Case (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I think my first note would be about sources. A lot of the sources you've used in that article are not independent - for example, you should not cite an artist's personal website or their commercial gallery's website in the artist's biography article (and just because you can find examples of artist bios where those kinds of sources have been cited, doesn't mean it's right). You also should not use an organization's website to confirm details about that organization - for example, you cannot use the Atlas Ensemble's website as the source of the details of this artist's work with that group. You need to find independent coverage of the artist in reliable publications. Independent is key here; if the artist has a sustained professional relationship with a source, that source probably doesn't belong in the artist bio. We're in a difficult moment for arts scholarship and writing generally, as there are simply not as many reliable publications still publishing detailed information about artists, but we do still have to find and use those sources instead of relying on information published by the artist or their colleagues. Happy to take a deeper dive if you'd like. 19h00s (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply @19h00s. Yes, I'd be more than happy to have some help with this. Maybe the article should be simplified and information that can't be properly cited to be deleted. The tricky part is that the artist is not a solid visual artist, he seems to work with sound and space. I find a lot of references on sound/music compositions, but they kind of stop around corona time. After that I read interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary artist etc. I already include in the article citations about his participation as an artist in a couple of museums. I just finished another thorough google search on his name. Here's a few things I've found:

Mentions on the music magazine The Wire. But we can only read the full mentions with a subscription (I don't have one).

A (quite old) mention on the site Hellenic Music Archive.

Mention in the Athens Epidaurus Festival of 2021 as a tutor in a workshop at the Little theatre of ancient Epidaurus.

A review for the CD Not A Single Road by the American Recorder organisation.

An interview at VPRO about the work Alice (mentioned as an experimental performative installation) in Dutch.

An article on Alice by the Dutch newspaper nrc (needs subscription, I have downloaded the page because I have one).

A mention about Alice and Deligiannis on the Dutch festival November Music.

An interview on the platform Re-Fuse at the Opera Forward Festival.

A mention in an article at the site Issue Project Room about the New York Foundation for the Arts residency Deligiannis took part in.

An article about the Venice Biennale work at the Thessaloniki International Documentary Festival.

There's many mentions online about Venice Biennale and Deligiannis, I already have included in the article the official site of La Biennale and the critique by e-flux.

Another reviewer (Aza24) I've asked for help wrote me this: "Also, he is mentioned in this book which seems like a high-quality reference worth using ."

There are two youtube channels appearing as video-score channels: Score Follower and Incipitsify, where some Deligiannis' works show up. I've clicked on their link and I got a website that looks like an app. Here's what I see when typing Deligiannis in search:

His participation (music) in a work listed at the Greek government site for culture.

I hope I'm not spamming here with info that is not useful. But I think some of the above could be of use. Kamien Case (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Happy to take a look at a few of these sources, though I don't have time to dive into all of them. Right off the bat though, I would very much agree that you should simplify and delete information that doesn't have a reliable, independent citation. I totally agree that this artist deserves an article - the Venice Biennale is arguably the only international art event where participating as an artist almost automatically makes that artist notable enough for a Wikipedia article - but a lot of the information you've included just needs to be cut until you can find a reliable, independent source that directly supports that point. Will take a look through some of these sources in a few. 19h00s (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

OK, after taking a look at a few of these sources, this may be a bit out of my wheelhouse. I know there are super established norms and rules around sourcing information for musical artists (the Albums WikiProject maintains a list of both reliable and deprecated music publications, of which there are quite a lot). But I'm not super familiar with those guidelines or publications. For example, I really don't know if the Hellenic Music Archive can be considered reliable (this is not me mistrusting the source, I just don't know music sources super well). I would suggest if you haven't already maybe asking folks in the Albums or Music WikiProjects for assistance, as they would most likely be able to offer more detailed insights. But as it stands, I do think this artist deserves a bio article; I'm just not sure how detailed it can be yet. Sorry I can't be of more detailed help.

A broader note, though: Interviews are generally considered primary sources and should be cited with extreme caution. The content of an interview is essentially just a subject's own material (the things they said), so you should use interviews very cautiously. My rule of thumb is that I only cite interviews when they are directly quoted in a separate, reliable, independent publication. With visual artists, often that manifests with one curator publishing an interview with an artist and several years later another curator or art historian will quote that interview in an essay or article about the artist, meaning a separate reliable secondary source have themselves cited and analyzed the primary source quote. 19h00s (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@19h00s thanks a lot for spending time on this. So I'll keep the Venice Biennale info in the article as a core for its notability and will ask in the music and composers projects for more help on sources related to these topics. If I think of questions you could maybe help with I might get back here bothering you. Kamien Case (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

REally you need reviews (perhaps quoting them) not "mentions" - have you read WP:ARTIST? 00:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Statue of Ronald Reagan (Arlington, Virginia)

Statue of Ronald Reagan (Arlington, Virginia) has been nominated for deletion, if any project members are interested in weighing in or improving the article. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:George Washington (Trumbull)#Requested move 20 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:George Washington (Trumbull)#Requested move 20 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Painter article badly needed

Writer, Musician, Actor, etc. have stand-alone articles. This is just a redirect. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

You may be right, although to me it feels like 'Painter' is covered well in the Painting page and a competing article would overly diversify the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn Splitting such broad concepts is not the easiest task, but if we can have writing and writer, etc. I think there is a conceptual problem. And generally, such key professions can have subarticles. Painter can discuss painter's career, education, psychology, and likely a bunch of stuff we don't need or don't even touch upon in painting (activity). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

We have the fairly crappy artist - few artists are only painters. I agree with Randy Kryn we don't need another article; artist could certainly be improved. Obviously writing/writer is a completely different case - most people have undergone extensive training in writing, but are not writers. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Music/Musician. Acting/Actor. On the other hand, yes, Sculpting/Sculptor (both redirect to sculpture). Shrug. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Musician is hardly worth having, though actor is good, if highly Western-centric. Johnbod (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

New article for Everyone Hates Elon

Just a note that a new article has been created for Everyone Hates Elon, a political campaign group based in London. This article might be of interest to this project, as the group's activities include guerrilla art, protest art, subvertising/culture jamming and participatory art. I didn't want to presume, so haven't added a banner to the talk page myself! If the article is within the project's scope, please feel free to add the banner to Talk:Everyone Hates Elon. Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Neogeo art

Can someone more knowledgeable than me on the subject confirm if Neo-minimalism and Neogeo (art) are the same topic? TarkusAB^talk/contrib 08:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

It's complicated lol. I would argue that this is actually not even settled yet; these terms refer to such recent art historical trends/styles that critics and academics have not really agreed on strict definitions or divisions (nor will there ever be universal agreement, but we're not even at the stage of consistent critical consensus yet). The definitions are really linked to the specific critics who first invoked the terms and the artists they labelled as such. I'd say Neo-minimalism is a more widely used term but Neogeo is by no means out of use. They overlap quite a lot but the original meanings are distinct; Neo-minimalism was more about artists of the 80s/90s-on using some tactics/styles of historical minimalist artists (from the late 50s/60s); while Neogeo was originally meant to include artists who were deploying a modified version of the geometric abstractionist style of the 50s/60s (color field painting, Ellsworth Kelly, etc.), often with a distinct social critique baked into the work. Do those definitions overlap? For sure, in that you could categorize many artists under both because they made work that fits both definitions. But I think they are distinct in that they have specific origins with specific critics/artists. 19h00s (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with 19h00s. They are definitely not the exact same topic. Neogeo (art) is typically very specific 1980s East Village New York art and artists, where Neo-minimalism is typically much broader. Neo-Geo also typically has very strong pop art and appropriation art elements or influences, that are not typically present in much Neo-minimalist art. Both articles look like they need some work! Asparagusstar (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Notes in list

Hi, I'm in the process of expanding List of paintings by Gustav Klimt into a complete list, and I wanted to ask about the value of such a detailed notes section. I've noticed that other similar list articles for other artists don't go into as much detail, or include 'Notes' at all. I figured this was an appropriate place to ask for help. Thanks Golem08 (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

New Royal Portraits

I need some help on the Coronation State Portraits of Charles III and Camilla. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Sourcing and notability concerns re Charles S. Dorion

Just a quick note to say I've opened a discussion at Talk:Charles S. Dorion#Concerns re sourcing and notability per WP:ARTIST, and would welcome input from participants in this WikiProject! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Looking for an article to improve?

Having tinkered with the then-draft, now-article Le Carreau des Halles, I took a quick look at the article on its painter: Victor Gabriel Gilbert. Turning it into a GA would be a major challenge, but improving it significantly should be easy. (Me do it? Sorry, no, the demands of "RL" -- and of one other, art-unrelated article -- beckon.) And as this excessively illustrated stub has so little text, a "DYK" should be a possibility. -- Hoary (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Han Sai Por

Han Sai Por has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Dinolandia

I've created an article for the dinosaur-themed art exhibit and pop-up museum Dinolandia, if any project members are interested in reviewing before I nominate for Good article status. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Request for feedback on draft article about artist Allie Jackson

Hello! I’m Allie Jackson, a visual artist based in Georgia. Because I have a conflict of interest, I’ve created a draft article about myself in my user space here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Artcurator24.

I work primarily in oil and watercolor, and my work has been exhibited in several juried shows, including the Art of Georgia exhibit at the State Capitol and the Lyndon House Arts Center. I’ve also been covered by publications like the Athens Banner-Herald and The Augusta Chronicle.

You can learn more about my exhibitions and work at my website: https://alliejacksonart.com.

I would really appreciate any feedback on how to improve the draft to meet Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing standards. Thank you so much for your time and guidance! Artcurator24 (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Artcurator24. I don't mean to be blunt, but based on the sources in the draft article, you do not currently meet Wikipedia's notability standards for inclusion. I do not think it would be productive or particularly kind for me to go through your artist CV and note the individual reasons why the sources and exhibitions do not merit your inclusion, so instead I'd suggest looking for some articles for long-established, notable artists who may not be household names. You'll notice that many of those articles are underdeveloped or practically empty, despite their subjects having very illustrious careers. Being an artist - and gaining notability as an artist - is a long game. Let your work and career develop before trying to memorialize yourself and your work.

I wish you luck in your career! 19h00s (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I would add to that, having seen people go through this ringer many times before, that I would recommend to any editor, before you work on anything in any way personally related to yourself, get a thousand edits under your belt in topics and subjects that are completely separate from you. In this way, you will learn what makes an article good and worthy of inclusion without wrestling over personal perspectives while doing it. BD2412 T 21:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abandoned footwear (2nd nomination)

Editors here may have an interest in this AfD of an article which covers artistic uses and is a visual arts Wikiproject topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Invader (artist)

Invader (artist) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Sanguine § Requested move 8 July 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sanguine § Requested move 8 July 2025, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Ham II (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Invader (artist)

Invader (artist) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Daniel in the Lions' Den (Rubens)

A GA that recently failed FAC. Non native English speaker who has done great research but the article is lacking polish especially wrt reference formatting. Needs a lot of (relatively light) fairy dust. Asking for eyes and help to it get over the line. Ceoil (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Classificatory disputes about art, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Titling for Black Abstractionism

Hey all, hoping for some help from other modern/contemporary art editors. The article Black Abstractionism covers the recent - 20th century on - history of African–American and other Black artists creating and exhibiting abstract art. I flagged this on the talk page but didn't get any responses; I think the article is very important and contains info that totally belongs on Wiki, but it's nowhere near being in line with the MOS or Wiki's sourcing rules.

The bigger issue to me though is the title. I have no idea how editors came to the term "Black Abstractionism" as the authoritative phrase for the general history of abstract art by Black artists; I can't think of any notable authors who have posited that phrase as the primary identifier of this history/movement - lots of different terms abound, both historical and contemporary, from Afro-American Abstraction to Blackstraction, none have become the de facto or authoritative term in the literature, to my knowledge. Given the content of the article, it makes more sense to me to be titled something like "Abstract art by black artists" or similar. There have been a huge number of exhibitions/journal articles/books in the past 25 years chronicling this topic and history, so it clearly deserves an article of its own (even if, imo, and in the opinion of many scholars/artists, it's reductive to group artists as "black abstract artists" instead of simply "abstract artists" or even "artists"). The title just doesn't make sense to me.

Do others have insights into what this article should be titled? Again, I asked on the talk page but haven't heard anything. None of the sources seem to support the title as it's been chosen currently. 19h00s (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Noting that there are a lot of artist bios on here that now include language to the effect of "this artist was a figure in Black Abstractionism", seemingly added by editors working on this article. Because so many museums are now reusing Wikipedia content, a lot of museums have that copy republished directly on their websites, meaning people are reading info on a museum website that they will assume is authoritative that makes it seem as if this identifier is correct and universal. Wouldn't be surprised if this somehow snowballs into a sort of citogenesis situation with third party writers/reporters assuming that this term is the authoritative phrasing for this topic. 19h00s (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

In case anyone's interested in the conversation, I've started a move request for this article's title. Tried to engage in dialogue with the primary contributor to this article but have gotten nowhere. Would love some extra eyes on this as I really don't think we should be defining "movements" or art "isms" without rigorous sourcing. 19h00s (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Edits to Francisco Goya

There have been some tendentious edits to Francisco Goya and List of works by Francisco Goya in recent days. I'm not versed enough to know if they are sound. Perhaps someone here can weigh in. At the very least they need some editing. rblv (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Ceoil perhaps, or anyone? Johnbod (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Have reverted. Looks very essay-ish with phrases such as "When studying Goya, a crucial point to bear in mind is that" and "It is therefore important to recognize that". Some of it may be salvageable, but a lot seems to be fancifying up points that were already in the article. Ceoil (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Wadsworth Jarrell

Wadsworth Jarrell has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

TFA dates investigation

• Beauty Revealed - Painted 1828
• Musidora: The Bather 'At the Doubtful Breeze Alarmed' - exhibited in 1843

Both FA that haven't run on the main page, and a bit more information on dates related to them could give some clues when to run them. A month range for when Beauty revealed or when Musidora was exhibited would help out. It doesn't have to be a specific date. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Why exactly? "Four versions of Musidora attributed to Etty exist in total, the first of which was exhibited at the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition in 1843" - this has opened in June in recent decades, & probably did in 1843. As the article explains,Beauty Revealed wasn't exhibited until long after it was paintedm in 2008 apparently. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Anniversaries give hints or reminders when to run it on the main page so FA don't just languish and never run. With 715 articles that are FA and have never run, it's possible that some will never actually make the front page. The page for William Etty has a very clear obvious date to run it (his birthday), and the exhibition date makes the most sense for paintings. Etty's The Combat ran last month roughly on the anniversary of its first exhibition in 2025, and the article was nominated in 2015. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Harizotoh9, I really appreciate people tending to the thankless task of scheduling TFA's, but there is a feeling by some that using loose anniversaries as a scheduling mechanism is a bit meah, and perhaps glib. A better alternative would be a spreadsheet or sortable table, but just saying why you might have been slightly bitten here :( Anyway and best Ceoil (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

There may be "715 articles that are FA and have never run", but almost none on paintings - perhaps just these two. Is nudity more the issue here? Both show naked breasts prominently. If we have just had an Etty recently, it may be best to leave a longish interval, and not worry about a specific date. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

This is true and indicates why a measure other than dates will avoid closeness. Ceoil (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Op art vs. Trompe-l'œil

The recent death of Günther Uecker brought to my attention the term Op art. I think its article should distinguish it from Trompe-l'œil and vice-versa. Can anyone here do that.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Done that. Johnbod (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Op art should probably also be mentioned at Trompe-l'œil in a clarifying way.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• @Johnbod:-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I think something was wrong with my cache. It looks good.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Resolved

-02:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Sanguine § Requested move 8 July 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sanguine § Requested move 8 July 2025, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Ham II (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Dogs Playing Poker provenance/location

Of the 152 specific works of painting listed at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Arts#Specific works of visual art only one work seems to be missing any significant provenance/location information: Dogs Playing Poker. It might seem like the fact that this is an extensive series is a valid explanation. However, Self-portraits by Rembrandt, Water Lilies (Monet series) and Wheat Fields all seem to have significant content in this regard.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Have thought the same in wondering where the original paintings in this series are exhibited or collected. I fully expect them to end up in major museums at some point, and one or two to be among the most expensive artworks - they are that iconic of 20th century artifacts. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

On Commons (see commons:Category:Dogs Playing Poker (Coolidge)), only Poker Game has any provenance. It is listed as being in a private collection. I suppose we can add (private collection) to that image's caption. Peaceray (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I fail to understand why this is the only important work that we don't have any documenatation of either location or private collection status for almost all of them.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

New WikiProject

Hello!

I propose a WikiProject with the working title of Art & Architecture Copyedits.

The proposed WikiProject has two main goals:

1. To copyedit any articles related to Art & Architecture that have the copyedit or clarify tag, and
2. To create a supportive, welcoming space for newcomers. Experienced editors are also very appreciated, especially for the proposal process, but the WikiProject, once created, will mainly be recruiting newcomers.

If you would like to join, please do comment below, and I'll ping you during the proposal to confirm your intent. I will be posting this message on all related WikiProjects. All experience levels appreciated! 22ManzanaBoy (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Sculpture name

I don't do a lot of work on foreign soil. I have created an article for a sculpture whose name seems to be literally translated by the press as Against All Currents, but more idiomatically translated by the sculptor as Against the Tide. How should I handle the name of the sculpture.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Call to action regarding Jérôme Duquesnoy l'Ancien

I was researching painters and sculptors at WP:VA. I went through all the current VA specific works of painting and sculpture during this research. There is one article that oddly points to a visual artist that has articles on 6 wikis but not ENWP. Creator of Manneken Pis ◎ 5 Jérôme Duquesnoy l'Ancien, who also seems to be known as Jérôme Duquesnoy the Elder, seems like he should have an article on ENWP. I am encouraging others to stub this guy out.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

"l'Ancien" is "the Elder" in French; we should use Jérôme Duquesnoy the Elder. Or Jerôme Duquesnoy (I), as his son (exceuted for sodomy) is at Jerôme Duquesnoy (II).

Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Johnbod, Thx for the clarification. Is this guy close enough to your wheelhouse to stub him out. I have to imagine if he has articles in 6 languages, he is notable.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Certainly notable, but I'm unlikely to get round to it for some time. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

The Fledglings?

In the course of researching Morris Park Aerodrome, I started User:RoySmith/drafts/The Fledglings and was surprised to discover I could find very little about the painting. If anybody can point me at some better sources, I'd be grateful for your assistance. RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Specific works for vital artists

At WP:VA4 1 of the 10 sculptors and 6 of the 63 painters have no specific works listed as among the vital specific works of paintings, sculptures and other media. I was wondering if anyone here has opinions on what specific works would be the most important for consideration for editors to improve for each the following artists: Joseph Beuys ◎ 5, Antoine Watteau ◎ 4, Camille Pissarro ◎ 4, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec ◎ 4, Wassily Kandinsky ◎ 4, Marc Chagall ◎ 4, Gerhard Richter ◎ 4.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger The vital articles lists stress me out for some reason (I think just the visual chaos), but a few suggestions for Beuys on individual works:

• I Like America and America Likes Me (I Like America is probably Beuys's most well known/notable performance imo, that article really needs to be expanded)
• How to Explain Pictures to a Dead Hare
• 7000 Oaks

Richter and Kandinsky are difficult as most of their very notable work comes in the form of series, not necessarily individual paintings. Although there should definitely be standalone articles for Richter's Six Gray Mirrors (on long term view at Dia Beacon) and the article for Richter's 18. Oktober 1977 series could use some TLC given its importance. 19h00s (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree with those from Beuys. I Like America and America Likes Me is in my experience the image most often used in art history textbooks with just a single image of his work, followed by How to Explain Pictures to a Dead Hare. For general strategies for helping determine what the most important work(s) for any of these artists might be, I suggest maybe: 1) Check for notable work in the box at the bottom of their article like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Joseph_Beuys 2) Looking at page views of articles on their works like which in this case seems to confirm the same three in the same order that 19h00s listed. 3) Check what other sources like Britannica mention, for example https://www.britannica.com/biography/Joseph-Beuys mentions only "one of his best-known actions, How to Explain Pictures to a Dead Hare." Asparagusstar (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

User:19h00s, VA has room for series. VA includes Wheat Fields , Sunflowers (Van Gogh series) ◎ 5, Water Lilies (Monet series) ◎ 4, Self-portraits by Rembrandt ◎ 5, and Bird in Space ◎ 5, as well as other series and sets of variations. Let me know what specific subjects you think are important even if they are series.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

For Watteau, from my experience and checking a few books, The Embarkation for Cythera seems to be the work most often shown. Asparagusstar (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not the biggest Richter/Kandinsky expert so I'd mostly leave that to others, but I do think the 18. Oktober 1977 series is due for expansion/improvement, it's been extensively cited as one of his most important, if not his most important non-abstract series. 19h00s (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm fascinated to see how the history - and critical legacy - of Richter's squeegee paintings is eventually rendered on Wikipedia. Thinking especially about Artforum's choice to put a Jack Whitten painting on the cover of the magazine in February 2012, a painting that looks quite a lot like Richter's squeegees but in fact predated Richter's technique by two decades. That issue of Artforum came out while Richter had a massive retrospective traveling from Tate to Berlin; it also contained a Benjamin Buchloh essay about Richter's paintings. The whole thing caused a bit of drama in art circles over "who did it first". The conversation has come up again over the past year with Whitten's retrospective at MoMA, I've read several curators and critics pointing out that Whitten developed the technique earlier.

All that is to say: art history is malleable, things change and we learn more about different artists. I'm very interested to see how that kind of history/narrative/evolution is eventually incorporated in the long term, and how those changes/developments are eventually incorporated into decision making around Vital Articles. 19h00s (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Massviews analysis, as eg here for Category:Paintings_by_Henri_de_Toulouse-Lautrec can give an idea, though the results can be skewed in various ways - big recent auction results etc. Johnbod (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Johnbod, What an interesting tool. I guess you can combine that with interwikis for a quick and dirty of what is vital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chalk carving

The article Chalk carving has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for almost 12 years. No other language has an article from which to translate. WP:NOTHOWTO.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive3

There are only 17 specific works of paintings listed as Vital article level 4. Campbell's Soup Cans is one of those 17. It has lost its WP:FA status. I have restored it to a WP:GA, which was no small lift. It remains a WP:FFA. I am trying to restore it to FA status. Before I take another run at WP:FAC, I feel I need a WP:PR. In October 2023, it went 10 months at PR without any reviews. On July 8, I renominated it at PR. I need a reviewer.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

P.S. I am aware that if this project were going to decide the 17 most important paintings for Wikipedians to edit, the list might not even have a 50% overlap with our list, but this is an important set of works. They would probably all make the top 50 or at least top 100 if the list was decided only by people in this project.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to User:SNUGGUMS who stepped up a few hours after I posted this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive3

Campbell's Soup Cans is a seminal piece of art that is a WP:FFA. It is one of 17 paintings listed at vital articles level 4 and one of 8 contemporary art works listed at vital articles level 5. Please feel free to comment on its current WP:FAC nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive3.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Artworks damaged, destroyed or stolen during the 2023 Brazilian Congress attack#Requested move 1 August 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Artworks damaged, destroyed or stolen during the 2023 Brazilian Congress attack#Requested move 1 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 04:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I need help understanding the importance of an image

I am going to be borrowing a lens from Canon Professional Services to get a couple of pics for us. I am allowed to do an evaluation loan on almost any piece of camera equipment they sell for 10-days. Boating Party currently has a low res image, a high res image with a brown band and a crop of that at commons. It has a good shot to get a picture slot on DYK so I Canon is going to ship me a lens next week to take on the day of the August 7 Gustave Caillebotte lecture at the Art Institute of Chicago. I have gotten them to approve a 24mm/1.4 lens. I don't really need anything that wide for Boating Party, but I am also working on User:TonyTheTiger/Sandbox/America Window this, which is on the Art Institute apps Essential tour of 12 items to see. Currently, we have articles for 9 of the 12 items plus my Sandbox effort. The 12 are mostly no brainers. The 4 WP:VAs (A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte ◎ 4, American Gothic ◎ 5, Nighthawks (Hopper) ◎ 5, Paris Street; Rainy Day ◎ 5); 2 articles that are currently nominated at VA (Haystacks (Monet series) ◎ 5, The Old Guitarist ◎ 5); three others that we have articles for (Assumption of the Virgin (El Greco) , Improvisation No. 30 (Cannons) , Bathers by a River ), the America Window article I am working on that is of clear importance to me. There is a statue that I am not qualified to assess and then the final article is not of clear importance to me City Landscape by Joan Mitchell who once held the record for highest sale price at auction by a female artist. I am a bit surprised that this was chosen over a Magrite, Van Gogh or O'Keeffe. Maybe I should get a picture of this work too and create an article. Does anyone know the significance of this work and why it would be in the dozen works that are considered essential by the AIC? TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

A few notes on the Mitchell painting:

• It was included in the Vanguard 1955 exhibition originating at the Walker Art Center, generally considered an important exhibition of the era (included painters like Richard Diebenkorn).
• It seems to mark a transition period in her style, beginning to move away from the duskier, muted tones of her early period abstractions and starting to embrace brighter, more intense colors.
• It is one of a number of her works from this period with the title City Landscape, presumably because it is meant to represent a specific city, most likely New York or Paris; she is quoted on the AIC page as saying her works are "landscapes", though visually abstract.
• I don't know that much about this specific painting, but it does seem to occupy a special place in Mitchell's oeuvre as a transition-period work, and Mitchell is generally considered one of the most important post-war American artists. Not that surprised it was picked as essential by AIC tbh.

--19h00s (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

User:19h00s, Are you saying that an article with the title City Landscape should encompass a series?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

P.S. I don't see anything like this at joanmitchellfoundation.org. Maybe you are seeing a set of sketches or something (although I am not of the impression that she sketches her abstracts)?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Here's an identically titled work by Mitchell that sold at Christie's last year. I'm running between off-wiki tasks rn so I'll answer more fully later, but I don't think this was a series, per se. She just seems to have used the same title for several works - I'd have to crack open some of the literature regarding her style/evolution to find the specifics on how many works had this title and how/if they're actually connected beyond sharing a name. 19h00s (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger I did some more searching - I can't find any references online to this being a defined "series" in the formal sense, but there are definitely multiple separate paintings with this title, all from the same period. I think to get the details on this someone will need to dig through some of the (many) books on Mitchell.

I did find some info on SFMoMA's website about the identical titles which references the work owned by AIC. The piece quotes curator Marin Sarvé-Tarr: "Mitchell titled several paintings from the 1950s City Landscape, pointing to the lack of distinction she saw between urban and natural environments. 'For Mitchell, natural landscapes and cityscapes were deeply intertwined in her experiences of the world,' says Sarvé-Tarr. 'She saw them both as ripe territory for painting.' " 19h00s (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

User:19h00s, I will be spending time at the Library soon. I was going to research Chagall's America Window. Everybody in Chicago is checking out the Caillebotte and Impressionist books at the library right now, so I will have to wait a few months to research him. I am not sure where City Landscape will fall in terms of future research. It sounds like you have uncovered a lot. If AIC thinks it is important, time will probably prove them right. I don't understand abstract expressionism so well anyways. I'll take photos of it, but since it is 70 years old, copyright is expiring some places, but it is probably either {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-no notice}}, somebody else should probably tackle it. A high res file will get reduced so you could just screenshot this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

On the copyright of it all, I would also assume that Mitchell did not use copyright notices on her paintings (have never spotted a notice on the paintings I've seen irl). But notably the Joan Mitchell Foundation (JMF) did get into a copyright fight recently with LVMH. The Fondation Louis Vuitton hosted a traveling retrospective of Mitchell's work in 2022, along with a show putting Mitchell's work alongside work by Monet. LVMH then used Mitchell's paintings installed in the show as the backdrop for an ad campaign for Louis Vuitton, after JMF had rejected an earlier request to do so. JMF sent LVMH a cease and desist and the two parties eventually settled for an undisclosed amount, so there's no way to know for sure what would have happened had they made it to the evidentiary stage of any legal proceedings. (funnily, the Joan Mitchell show no longer appears on the Fondation Louis Vuitton's website, though the Monet-Mitchell show is still listed and describes the retrospective) 19h00s (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I meant to copy two different lisences. I don't remember the other now, but regardless, you seem to be a great researcher and more knowledgeable about this subject than I. You should take a stab at this work. BTW, I have sent an inquiry to JMF regarding the various works under the same name.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• She is Chicago-born and an alumn of both a local high school (Francis W. Parker School (Chicago)) and college (School of the Art Institute of Chicago), so her work may have a special priority at the AIC. Her work is obviously valuable since she sells at $20 million. Maybe her work is our best abstract expressionism. Maybe they wanted a local. Cutting down to 12 works is no doubt difficult. If I were to choose an SAIC alum, I would have gone with Jeff Koons for the last spot. Among women, Georgia O'Keefe has been far more prominently presented in exhibitions (although I am realizing that Mitchell may be outselling her at auction now). I wonder if Mitchell's AbEx work is also gaining on Jackson Pollack AbEx works at auction.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  With the caveat that I'd need to find more citations to back this up: I'd wager that Mitchell is in the top 3 most notable/famous AbEx painters. Pollock is essentially cemented as the most famous but even just in the past few months I've read contemporary critics citing Mitchell for her broad notability (Andrew Russeth recently claimed in NYT that Mitchell rivaled Willem de Kooning as America's greatest living abstract artist in the late 20th century). 19h00s (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  • PBS agrees with you regarding the top 3.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

    • I don't seem to have gotten you interested in starting this article. I am going to sandbox something User:TonyTheTiger/Sandbox/City Landscape.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

      Feel free to get it started and I'm happy to help take a look/adjust. I just don't have the capacity rn to do this one myself. 19h00s (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

      • I have added several journal articles and taken a stab at a legacy section. There are currently no VAs listed at WP:FA that have been promoted since I got Drowning Girl and Whaam! promoted with a lot of help in 2013. I am wondering if the standards/expectations have changed making it difficult for important paintings to make the list. I hope this is not too heavy of a lift.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:15, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

        I don't think I have enough background knowledge on the history of the FA process or the evolution of visual arts editorial expectations over the course of Wikipedia's history to understand how things have shifted, but I do get the sense that experienced visual arts editors - myself included - are more rigorous about breadth than in the past. For example, I would not consider an article about a notable work of art complete until I had included all major schools of thought about the work. For the article I wrote for Lynch Fragments, that manifested as like 5 or 6 paragraphs of analysis. For a work like Campbell's Soup Cans (again, one of the most discussed works in modern/contemporary art), you could easily fill half the article with critical interpretations/analysis and you'd still be missing a few strains of thought. Wikipedia shouldn't be exhaustive in that we don't need every single critic's take on those paintings, but there is such a volume of writing about the paintings that the article simply requires a larger amount of analysis. There could even be an argument that this work is so notable and so broadly discussed that the critical interpretations of the Campbell's Soup Cans require their own article. 19h00s (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

        • User:19h00s, Your thoughts are especially pertinent to the things that are at VA, which are likely to be widely discussed. Sorry to be dragging you in two directions with Campbell's Soup Cans and User:TonyTheTiger/Sandbox/City Landscape. You are welcome to chip in on both.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:01, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

FYI regarding notable specific works of visual arts articles

With the Gustave Caillebotte exhibition here at Art Institute of Chicago, it came to my attention that ENWP only had 11 articles of specific works by Caillebotte until I created Boating Party, while FRWP has 31 specific works articles. I have not checked on how common this is, but I would imagine that for painters whose primary language is not English, there may be English works to create based just on the set of foreign works.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• Here are some the same numbers for the French painters that Caillebotte collected:

Alfred Sisley: Category:Paintings by Alfred Sisley 37 items, FR:Catégorie:Tableau d'Alfred Sisley 49 items

Pierre-Auguste Renoir: Category:Paintings by Pierre-Auguste Renoir 66 items, FR:Catégorie:Tableau d'Auguste Renoir 96 items

Camille Pissarro: Category:Paintings by Camille Pissarro 22 items, FR:Catégorie:Tableau de Camille Pissarro 33 items

Claude Monet: Category:Paintings by Claude Monet 86 items, FR:Catégorie:Tableau de Claude Monet 119 items

Jean-François Millet: Category:Paintings by Jean-François Millet 13 items, FR:Catégorie:Tableau de Jean-François Millet 32 items

Édouard Manet: Category:Paintings by Édouard Manet 85 items, FR:Catégorie:Tableau d'Édouard Manet 99 items

Edgar Degas: Category:Paintings by Edgar Degas 23 items, FR:Catégorie:Tableau d'Edgar Degas 66 items

Paul Cézanne: Category:Paintings by Paul Cézanne 66 items, FR:Catégorie:Tableau de Paul Cézanne 79 items

Here is a small sample of names that you could get involved in. I imagine that many non-native English speakers are in the same boat.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Notable works lists in Infoboxes

At Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#How_important_are_VAs_for_biographical_subject_infoboxes, I got no feedback regarding adding WP:VA articles to Infobox notable works lists. User:Ceoil just brought my attention to a discussion at Talk:Caspar_David_Friedrich#Infobox_issues regarding a plethora of infobox issues including unsourced notable works lists. I spent quite a few hours this morning doing what I thought was handling notable works issues. There are 3 types of situations that I was dealing with: 1. Infobox with no notable works listed. For these I added all WP:VAs. 2. Infoboxes that only include VAs but not all of them. For these I rounded out the lists. 3. Infoboxes that included many works that were not VAs but excluded some VAs. For these I made a list that I will put forward soon for discussion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jip Orlando, Bluevestman, and Johnbod: Pinging the other Friedrich discussants.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

P.S. in a few cases, not only was there no notable works list at all, but also there was not even an infobox. I added the infobox with the appropriate VAs.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:36, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Tony, you have said above a few times "I basically know nothing about visual arts", and now you want to throw open the highly subjective call on what are "artist X's most notable works? I'm sensing busy work and careless, cobbled-together infobox lists. Ceoil (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I am merely adding all VAs to infoboxes, unless the infobox has information suggesting there is some disagreement on what the most vital are for a subject (includes items not listed at VA). This is not subjective on my part. The subjectivity is the consensus of VA editors, but at least 4 people think these are vital for them to be listed at VA, so it is not just me and not random.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:40, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I just seek guidance on what to do for infoboxes that contain items not listed at VA.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

"This is not subjective on my part. The subjectivity is.." So it "is" subjective. I'm not opposed to the drive but urge caution and slow down.Ceoil (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

It is subjective in the same way that WP:FAs are subjective. It is a consensus of anywhere from 4 to 12 or 15 WP editors.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

• One other thing. In some cases, I replaced a list of works article with the set of VA articles.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:31, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I intend to restore the lists in a See also section.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

That's fine Tony; overall I very much welcome your recent work & tks. Ceoil (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

So do you have any advice on how to handle infoboxes that have notable works that are not considered vital and omit works that are considered vital?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• O.K. I added dozens of links to dozens of bios. User:Ceoil removed the vital article additions from Caspar_David_Friedrich due to previously discussed Talk:Caspar_David_Friedrich#Infobox_issues and the resulting consensus toward not having an infobox for this subject. User:Fram has removed them from Jan van Eyck and Peter Paul Rubens in favor of blanking the notable works parameter in well fleshed out infoboxes. This is a different issue. Fram, can you explain your decision to remove the vital articles from the notable works parameter. The edit summaries make it seem like you feel my choices were POV. I was including subjects listed at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Arts/Audiovisual_arts#Specific_works_of_visual_art. Is this objectionable?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
  • To clarify. There are 294 specific works listed. I have done them all except for the 9 fashion designs, 33 photographs, a handful of artists who use infoboxes that are not receptive to notable works, a handful of works without a known author, and 40 other works where I am considering what to do since the infoboxes contain notable works that are not currently listed vital articles. I would estimate that I have added or confirmed the pre-existence of 200 total works in the notable works parameter.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

  The infobox doesn't have to list notable works, and in the case of these two artists (and probably many other ones) there is such an abundance of notable works that it is better not to list any at all. The vital articles lists are rather random (and self-proclaimed "under construction" anyway), the choices of which paintings are the most notable for an artist are debatable, and should probably be discussed at the article talk page instead. I e.g. also don't agree that your edit at Dürer was an improvement. Fram (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• User:Fram, many fields in an infobox have some subjectivity and we always hope editors make reasonable decisions. The list of vital articles is always in flux, but it is directionally correct. You could definitely do worse than defining what is important from that list. In June, I used it to guide my trip through the Louvre. There are probably a bunch of ways to find an essentials tour of the Louvre, but I enjoyed the vital articles one. I know for some artists that I am familiar with there is some variation depending on the source as to which articles are the most notable/vital. I just decided to use that list as a reasonable set of instructions.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

  Your edits weren't unreasonable, but for some articles on my watchlist at least I think the previous situation was better. In which case, if you still think the change needs to be made, discussion on the article talk page is best. Using the vital articles list can't be a general guidance anyway, many artists don't have any article on the lists but still have notable works. And I would hate to go to the Louvre and not see the Madonna of Chancellor Rolin because some Wikipedia editors don't consider it a vital article. Fram (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• Fram, I don't think the infobox notable works parameter is for a comprehensive list, so I strongly disagree with the Dürer. Those lists even include elements that are not even notable enough to have articles. That parameter is suppose to teach you the short list of things that a person is noted for. Listing the sum of their work in that field is not appropriate.

  We only include 294 specific visual arts works of which 152 are paintings. So there can be no policy that notable works have to be vital to be included in the infobox parameter, but it is not unreasonable to say that all vital articles should show in these lists. No one who isn't VA3 has more than 4 vital specific works. No one who is not VA4 has more that 2 vital specific works. No one who is not VA5 has more than 1 vital specific work. Notable works are relative to the artist. Any artist at any level (even below vital) could have 3 or even 5 works for which he is most well known with none of them or only some of them being vital. For that person, whatever he is known for should be included in the parameter. This conversation is making me realize, I should just add the remaining 40 vitals to the bios even if they have non-vitals listed. I will get to that soon. I am happy to show up someplace to talk about Jan van Eyck and Peter Paul Rubens. I just think that place should be here for this issue. The issue is my general pursuit of adding all vital articles to notable works parameters. Even if there is disagreement on what is most notable for individual it helps the reader find at least a starter set of what that person is known for. If I wanted to have a hand in which additional works should be on that artists infobox, then the individual talk place would be advisable. I am only here to discuss whether adding VAs to all bios is something we should support.

  I would advise a Louvre first-timer like myself to take a guided tour and add in whatever else WP lists as vital. Then a wikipedia editor should go take selfies with articles he has had a heavy hand in just like he is at the Mona Lisa. Unless you plan on spending a whole day at the Louvre (which is could be worthwhile) that is a good first visit.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

  Durer is noted for much more than just two engravings though, he has e.g. made some of the most important and iconic self portraits ever, like the Self-Portrait (Dürer, Munich). You removed all mention of his paintings from the "notable works". Reducing an artists "most notable" works to the few which have, sometimes rather randomly, been added to the "vital" articles, is often not a good idea. The whole "vital atrticles" level 5 is a bad idea in any case. Fram (talk) 07:34, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• Fram, Please review MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. It is not suppose to be used for exhaustive lists. We are trying to deliver "key facts at a glance" not send them off to navigate exhaustive list. The less information the better. Presenting his whole career in notable works is counter to what an infobox is for. You have converted the infobox into a see also section. The article already has such a section with those exhaustive list articles. I am going to revert the Dürer, because of your lack of understanding of what an infobox is for.

  You have at least twice associated the vital articles list with the word random. Do you understand that consensus is mandated for inclusion. People don't vote by throwing darts. Rather than misclassifying the selection process, can we discuss vital articles as a consensus based process. The selected items are included because at least 4 people believe that the subject is among the 50,000 out of over 7 million (less than top 0.75%) subjects most worthy of editorial focus on ENWP. How is that random. We are talking about consensus of between 4 and 12 or 15 editors. Adding two VA works that have achieved such consensus to Dürer, we are helping the reader by prominently placing works in the infobox that are likely to be subjects that the reader would want to be directed to as most prominently associated with the subject. It does not stop you from adding 2 or 3 other such subjects.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  Linking to three lists is summarizing, it is not enumerating all these works. Removing "notable works" completely from the infobox for artists who have too many notable works is also perfectly in line with "infoboxpurpose", which states "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose". As for random, I am e.g. unable to find after which discussion Knight, Death and the Devil was added as a vital article. Fram (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  How is three lists that exhaustively enumerate his career providing a summary of his notable works. Exhaustive lists are not summaries. this edit marks the addition of Knight, Death and the Devil. Level 5 was created in 2018, IIRC, so the early list may have been a bit random, but most content has been reevaluated now. Do you have reason to believe that there would be consensus to remove this today?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  Well, I see that you added a Picasso sculpture to his infobox because it is "vital", which isn't noted on the talk page: it looks as if this one, which really isn't one of the most important artworks of the 20th century or of his career, was added randomly as well. It looks indeed as if the vast, vast majority of that list was created without any indication of where consensus was reached, and while many entries are no-brainers (no one would argue that the Ghent Altarpiece isn't a vital article), many others are indeed quite random, apparently just an idea of "this is a major artist, let's pick some of their works". If the list was created now from scratch, it would be quite different.

  There probably is a very good reason why we don't seem to have "known for" for e.g. pop artists or classical composers (the infobox just list to a discography or a list of compositions, just like our Durer article!). Fram (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• User:Fram, I implore you to lend your expertise and critical thought to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Arts_and_everyday_life#Remove_Chicago_Picasso. You still don't explain how an exhaustive list of career works is a summary of notable works.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:50, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• User:Fram, it seems that you watch here and respond to things quickly. If there is no convincing argument regarding the exhaustive list of career works within 24 hours from the above 14:50 posting, I'll be seeking edit-warring remedy because that would indicate that I'll just be reverted for a third time.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  WP:BRD. Just start a discussion on the article talk page. No need for ultimatums or threats. Fram (talk) 05:25, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

• I have added nearly 250 links to nearly 100 WP:WPVA articles. You have already had an issue with 3 of these edits. I don't think we should be going to each talk page for that. Plus, maybe other WP:WPVA folks have an opinion on what is right. I think Melencolia I, |Knight, Death and the Devil & Self-Portrait should be in the Notable works infobox parameter for Albrecht Dürer and you think List of paintings by Albrecht Dürer|List of engravings by Albrecht Dürer|List of woodcuts by Albrecht Dürer should be piped to the parameter. I have cited MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which explains the infobox purpose is to expalin "key facts at a glance". I'll drop a note on the talk page, but I don't think it is the right place to discuss this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Tony, I strongly agree with Fram on this, and think the main reason you are getting push back is that your basis, the vital articles list, was arbitrarily thrown together without much discussion and needs a lot more thought. Having scanned over the last week or so, its deeply flawed and no basis as a source for unilaterally updating artist's bios with definitive "major works". Ceoil (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what you are saying exactly. WP:VA is a work in progress rather than anything definitive, but directionally correct. I'm interested in what is deeply flawed about the visual arts specific works list. We know there is no definitive list of greatest paintings anywhere. E.g., 100 Great Paintings is completely ridiculous. I don't know anyone who agrees with their choices for Lichtenstein or Warhol. VA is certainly not a definitive list. However, notable works parameters in infoboxes are generally not sourced and I am not claiming they are a source. I don't use any WP:ICs. Those parameters seem to just be filled in by well-intended editors. VA is a consensus of well-intended editor, which is better than a single well-intended editor. Nothing is etched in stone. I am just trying to add a bunch of generally agreed choices to the notable works parameter. You seem to be misunderstanding the issue. It is not whether I have the right lists. This is a parameter in which we present key facts regarding notable works. The current arguement is whether the notable works parameter is suppose to present comprehensive lists of career works or a short list of specific works. That it the argument regardless of what well-intended list I use. You have completely missed the mark because you have not talked at all about this choice. Are you saying Fram is right that we are suppost to use comprehensive lists of career works in notable works parameters.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the choices in Vital Articles are even directionally correct. You are repeatedly claiming they are and are spearheading a drive to modify artists' infoboxes as if they are "generally agreed" which they are not. My preference is that infoboxes do not contain any such parameter. Ceoil (talk) 05:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• Let's reset. The WP:LEAD, which includes the WP:INFOBOX (to the right of the LEAD on desktop and after first paragraph of LEAD on mobile) is supposed to be an editorial summary of the article. It is OK if the LEAD has no sources because it summarizes the main body where sourced content is required. The proper way to summarize an article is to present the important points of the main body. Technically, the proper way for me to update notable works parameters is for me to go through each article and determine what works are most notable based on the presentation of the main body. Using the VA list is certainly not equivalent to summarizing the main body of that artists bio. The LEAD and INFOBOX of an artist's bio are suppose to be summaries of the key facts of the body of each artist's article. I understand that what I was doing was not that.
• We have very few fully fleshed out WP:FA-level artist bios. Until the body of each artist's bio is an FA-level summary of his life and legacy, summarizing it in the LEAD (including the INFOBOX) is problematic. So what was I doing. I was attempting to figure out a quick and dirty way to augment notable works parameters with content that is supposed to be an editorial consensus. Whether VA is "generally agreed" list is a different thing than saying it is suppose to be the best current approximation of an editorial consensus. Involved parties are suppose to look at the list and assess whether the current listings belong or should be displaced (via add/remove/swap nomination process).
• The actual disconnect is not in which source list I am using. The proper procedure to fill in the list is to determine the notable works as a summary of the main body content. When I say directionally correct, I assume that most specific works at VA are works prominently presented in artist bios. I have never checked this. There is no correct list to use, no independent source of notable works.
• None of this addresses the debate that we are having at Albrecht Dürer. The question there remains whether a notable works template parameter should include comprehensive listings of works or specific works. Right now it looks like in the absence of an agreement, we are going to include both.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• In regards to VA lists. I would say "arbitrarily thrown together without much discussion" and "deeply flawed" is a bit misleading for the specific works of visual arts elements. I feel that for the few artists that I have had enough editorial involvement with or knowledge of to assess, VA is pretty much correct (or directionally correct as I said). Comparing the VA listings for Warhol and Lichtenstein, I would definitely say those are directionally correct and way better than something like 100 Great Paintings. I have not studied art and don't know enough about most other artists to assess VA. If you were to redo the list with the same number of elements, what percent do you think you would replace?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Request for neutral creation of biography: Susie Hodge

Hello — I’m requesting help from a neutral, experienced editor to create an article on Susie Hodge (British author and art historian), as my own conflict of interest prevents me from doing so.

She has written over 150 books, many for major publishers including Thames & Hudson, Tate Publishing, Laurence King, Frances Lincoln, and Greenfinch. Her books have won awards, been selected in national press "books of the year" lists, and appeared on bestseller lists. She has also appeared widely in broadcast media (CNN, Channel 5’s Great Paintings of the World, Studio 10 Australia, WNYC), and given talks at the Edinburgh International Book Festival, Bath Literary Festival, Dallas Museum of Art, the Royal Academy (London), PUCRS (Brazil), and more.

Significant independent coverage exists, meeting WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG criteria. A draft with references is here: Draft:Susie Hodge.

Any volunteer willing to take on the creation or improvement of this article would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Susie Hodge (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Draft article about Nikolay Karabinovych – request for feedback.

Hello! I recently submitted a draft article about Nikolay Karabinovych to Articles for Creation: .

Since this topic is related to contemporary visual arts and Ukrainian culture, I thought it might be of interest to members of this project.

Any feedback or review from experienced editors would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your time! R2t573 (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Veiled Christ about removing List of statues of Jesus from "See also"

If interested please comment at Talk:Veiled Christ#List of statues of Jesus removed from See also, called "too general". The List of statues of Jesus page, distributed to its entries in February, 2023, immediately brought many more readers per day to the list and has provided sustained interest in the topic ever since. Please join the conversation if you'd like, maybe after browsing MOS:SEEALSO. The best thing coming from this may be the treat in store for editors who've never read or viewed the Veiled Christ. Be prepared to either scratch your head, have your mouth drop open, or just pick up a chisel and try to spend your life duplicating the statue, once widely believed to be created by magic. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Rainbow crossings

Rainbow crossing (Toronto) and Rainbow crossings in California are nominated for deletion, if any project members are interested in weighing in or making article improvements. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Pirouette DYK

The article Pirouette: Turning Points in Design is scheduled to appear on WP:DYK. As the DYK "hook" that has been chosen links to our Morris Louis article, it might be an opportune time to review that article to make sure it is up-to-date. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

RfC on Zak Smith

There is a current RFC on Zak Smith that the project may be interested in weighing in. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Rainbow crossing (Toronto)

Rainbow crossing (Toronto) has been nominated for deletion, if any project members are interested in weighing in or making improvements. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Ditto Rainbow crossings in California ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ngoia Pollard Napaltjarri

Ngoia Pollard Napaltjarri has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

International Stele Always Remember

International Stele Always Remember has been nominated for deletion, if any project members are interested in weighing in or making improvements. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Boeing Galleries

Boeing Galleries has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Leonid Isaakovich Vail

The article Leonid Isaakovich Vail has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 8 years. No other language has an article from which to translate. No hits on Google Books. Appears to be original research.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

U.S. Capitol art merger proposal

Hoping more editors might be able to weigh in here:

• Talk:United_States_Capitol_art#Merge_proposal

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Content removal at Boating Party

I woke up this morning and saw a whole bunch of content removal edits at Boating Party by an experienced editor. Can others take a look at those removal edits. P.S. it is currently scheduled to be on the main page in 8 days.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey Tony! It seems that @AirshipJungleman29 removed several pieces of original research as well as information unrelated to the painting in question. I don't see any big problems with their edits, but it might be useful to chat with AJ29 to get a sense of what the specific issues were that they wanted to address. 19h00s (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes 19h00s, thanks for reading my edit summaries which explain my logic well. Any further questions Tony? Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

User:AirshipJungleman29, I have posted my specific questions on the article talk.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• We are going to have the picture slot at DYK for this in less than 8 days. Should the link Impressionism appear in the WP:LEAD paragraph? Please weigh in on the article talk (in the User:Viriditas section not the AJ29 section) if you have an opinion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Start-class article reassessment for Saint Cecilia (Stefano Maderno)

Hello, I believe the article on the sculpture Saint Cecilia (Stefano Maderno) has been expanded beyond Start-class. It now contains multiple sections, reliable sources, and more comprehensive coverage of the subject. I suggest reassessing it as B-class (or higher, if appropriate). Gavingaebe (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:WPVA vs WP:ARTS

It seems to me that WP:ARTS is a parent of WP:WPVA. It seems that merely adding the {{WikiProject Visual arts}} gets some articles monitored by both projects and some only VA. I am unable to see why an article might be on Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Article alerts and not Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts/Article alerts or vice versa.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:32, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:ARTS has been dead for years, and should just be closed down. Look at the tumbleweed on the talk-page. It's scope was always far too wide. Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Standardizing our approach to articles about exhibitions and exhibition lists on artist pages

I am hoping to generate more of a conversation about standardizing Wikipedia articles about exhibitions - and the related but different subject of standardizing our approach and developing consensus around lists of exhibitions on artist pages. Although the manual of style has limited insight on these topics, there are sections that have hardly been the result of consensus and are generally still under debate, see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Lists of exhibitions. I generally put "Selected Exhibitions" as a section title instead of just "Exhibitions" e.g. Eduardo Navarro (artist) as exhibition lists can easily get long if the artist has a lengthy career or exhibition history. The number five exhibitions in the current manual of style recommendations on exhibitions seems arbitrary and way too short for reason though - as I said on the manual of style talk page linked above. Many many artist pages have more than five exhibitions, and in fact, exhibition lists, like discographies, are a great way to research the work of an artist. We need to come together as a community and figure out best practices around exhibition lists, as they are a critical part of the thousands of articles Wikipedia has on artists. I am going to be focusing on devising strategies to populate exhibition sections of Wikipedia articles about artists from Wikidata as part of my fellowship at MoMA that started this month. If you'd like to think more together with me on this, perhaps we could set up a group GLAM call or workshop on the topic. Thanks. Hexatekin (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

In reality, "Selected exhibitions" is what the artists themselves prefer, they curate the lists of exhibitions to give a favourable impression of themselves. Wikipedia isn't in the business of writing CVs or resumés, we generally go for notability. If I'm writing (or editing) an artist's Wikipedia article I prefer "Notable exhibitions" as the section heading. Generally I would suggest culling long lists of participation in group exhibitions, unless the 'group' is very small, or the exhibition is of recognised importance, or the artist in question has been singled out for attention in an independent review. Solo exhibitions are a much surer sign of success, in my opinion, and any lists of exhibitions should concentrate on these. Sionk (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

How does this subject relate to specific works. I just created City Landscape with its early presentations and three later retrospective tour details included. I did not even consider the possible MOS issues.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Hexatekin and thank you for raising this issue! I raised something similar here a while ago now, hoping to get some clarity on a range of visual art style issues.

My two cents on exhibition lists: it is not a productive use of your time to further populate exhibition sections for artist bios; in fact, most artist bios could probably use trimming when it comes to the exhibitions section, as others have already pointed out. Exhibition lists are inherently context-less and do not provide any meaningful insight into the artist's style or life. They are also usually the easiest thing to find when researching an artist for a biography article, given that most notable artists working today produce professional CVs that make it very easy to find a full exhibition history. My approach in recent years has been to cull "Exhibitions" lists to a handful of the most notable solo shows (notability in terms of general notability and notability within an artist's career), and a very select few group shows (usually the most broadly recognized Biennials/Triennials/etc.).

Candidly, it can be really tempting to see the long, easily accessible lists of information available about visual artists, in particular their lists of works, lists of collections, or lists of exhibitions, and want to use those as the basis for creating or expanding articles on here. But these lists are not useful on their own, they are only useful when integrated into a broader biographical or historical narrative. That broader work of cleaning up and substantively expanding an artist biography with prose as opposed to lists is much more difficult but much more important. But I'll say, as someone with access to the MoMA Library collection, you are in the perfect position to do that broader work as part of your fellowship :)

For some examples of what that kind of expansion can look like for modern/contemporary artists, I'd suggest checking out the article history for Melvin Edwards or Sam Gilliam, two articles I expanded with significant prose after first being tempted to just gather up the context-free information available in their CVs. It took a long time, a lot of digging through old newspapers, magazines, and rare catalogues, but I think the articles are much better for it.

Hope this was somewhat helpful! 19h00s (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

And just to put a finer point on the exhibition lists: because this information is often the most easily accessible when researching artists, many artist biography articles on here have essentially become nothing more than a list of exhibitions. Cleaning and culling those lists, many of them completely un-sourced, is something longtime visual arts editors have been working on for quite a while. So any change to the Visual Arts MOS to expand the recommended number of exhibitions in a list within a bio article would just encourage more of that kind of editing, which really adds nothing of value for the reader. It's like having an article for a musician with one line of biographical info but a 30-item discography; there's nothing the reader actually gains from knowing the titles of an artist's exhibitions with no other context. 19h00s (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

++ Would be more than happy to be in dialogue about this in some sort of discussion group/email chain. I am not a GLAM worker myself (GLAM-adjacent, I guess), but I'm definitely interested in fine tuning our approach to style and structure when it comes to visual arts articles. It's been a source of confusion for me personally over the years as I've tried to clean up and expand articles. 19h00s (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Ugh I'm sorry for adding so much discussion here, but one more thing. I think this discussion actually gets at a major structural issue with visual arts content. The art history and research side of my brain understands exactly where you're coming from, in that information like this (lists of an artist's exhibitions) is a critical part of the field. Cataloguing and documenting things like an artist's full exhibition history are standard and important elements of art historical research. They are also, notably, important parts of the commercial gallery ecosystem, helping establish an artist's career or a gallery's reputation. And that's where the field of art history's standards rub against Wikipedia's guidelines and culture. Wikipedia articles aren't meant to be a substitute for or equivalent of a commercial CV or academic monograph of a topic/subject/person. And an academic monograph or commercial CV are usually where you would find an unmediated exhibition history for an artist.

I do agree that exhibition lists (and to a certain extent lists of works) are somewhat analogous to discographies for musical artists. In that vein, I've long wondered if it might be appropriate for extremely notable and/or prolific artists to have standalone "List of solo exhibitions by..." articles. I think there's a case to be made that modern/contemporary artists at a certain level of notability/sheer artistic output might deserve standalone exhibition list articles.

Relatedly, I think there are some widely held beliefs among select editors that make these kinds of discussions difficult. For example, I don't believe it's "promotion" to note what gallery represents an artist, especially if it's been covered extensively by reliable sources (as is often the case for high profile artists/galleries). There seems to be a long history of commercial galleries attempting to add information about their artists to Wikipedia which has led to somewhat of a kneejerk reaction by some visual arts editors to view any information about galleries/gallery representation as promotional. That can make these conversations become very black-and-white, where information is automatically categorized as wholly promotional or not, when in reality it's much more nuanced.

Obvi I have lots of thoughts so please do feel free to tag me in if you'd like to continue this discussion! Apologies again for what is now a wall of text, rip. 19h00s (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi User:19h00s, User:TonyTheTiger, User:Sionk and anyone else interested in discussing best practices for articles about exhibitions, as well as exhibition lists on artist pages. I'm trying to think of a good venue/forum to hold a community discussion over Zoom, Jitsi, or some similar platform about this topic. Any ideas? There are several conferences coming up, but we may have missed the deadlines. Possibly I could post about this on the not-so-used GLAM-Wiki mailing list and see where the discussion goes there first. Many many thoughts! I think evaluating what is considered a "notable" group show is extremely hard, when many galleries are widely known, with many group shows being important, and group shows are a major way young artists build careers and become known - it's not just solo shows that show notability, and many group shows are important but fall out of the biennial circuit. Hexatekin (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I definitely don't disagree on the importance of non-Biennial group shows. Thinking back to shows like Primary Structures or something more recent like Soul of a Nation, these thematic exhibitions (at both commercial galleries and nonprofit museums/art spaces) can have a profound impact on the arc of a career. But I think again this gets at the bigger issue: you can only glean the importance of any single group exhibition by studying in depth the arc of an artist's career and examining the published discourse that surrounded (or didn't) their participation. It's not possible to know which group shows were actually notable in the context of their career without building out a broader biographical and career narrative in an article; and an unmediated list of group exhibitions, even if they are notable in all contexts, will not actually provide a reader with any reasonably useful information in a biography. I personally don't see value in adding most group exhibitions to artist biographies as a list, but rather embedded as part of the prose of their biography/career section.

Also courtesy pinging @Netherzone and @Downtowngal who both chimed in when I raised the exhibitions list in biographies question a few years ago. 19h00s (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Hexatekin, thanks for initiating this discussion! A good place to consider might be the GLAM Wiki Global Telegram group, which is a fairly good demographic for this conversation. Pinging @Jane023 and @Pharos who I recall having worked on modeling exhibitions in the past. Also, I would welcome you to join the meta:WREN calls and have this topic be one of the featured discussions, which is one of the best ways to get higher visibility to a group of knowledgeable folks. We also have the meta:Global GLAM calls on a monthly basis which would be a good venue for this to go beyond the borders of English Wikipedia, and perhaps talk Wikidata. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:08, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me but I don't have strong opinions how to model exhibitions on artist pages. I have only worked on exhibitions with catalogs because I want the lender of the work for provenance and also because it's too difficult to track down the works without the metadata available in a published catalog. Sadly most modern art exhibitions over time are undocumented besides newspaper reviews, probably because the cost of publishing a catalog (at best often just a list of titles by artist) is too expensive. Lots of information is probably also buried in archives that haven't been digitized (yet). I would generally agree that only exhibitions should be included on Wikipedia pages that are specifically relevant to the artist. Jane (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Painting dimensions

I'm rather confused on the dimensions of Klimt's Schloss by the Water and would appreciate if anyone could help. The National Gallery Prague, in which the painting is exhibited, gives it as 110 x 100 cm.^[1] However many other sources list it as 110 x 110 cm (^[2][3][4][5] etc.). I would consider the museum measurements the most authoritative however the inability to find this anywhere else has led me to question this (also the almost perfectly square images on commons ). I've noted this discrepancy within the article (diff) but would appreciate any clarification on whether to prefer one sizing over another. Thanks. Golem08 (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

The Klimt Foundation database also goes by 110 x 100 cm. Golem08 (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Golem08 It's quite common to see these kinds of discrepancies between museum collection databases and published literature; I also see it a lot between museums and commercial galleries. Usually the discrepancy comes because previous dimension measurements were not completely accurate or precise enough and a new measurement was made (either by a museum or for a publication). Sometimes the work in question has literally changed dimensions as canvases and stretcher bars can warp, shrink, or expand, or the work was possibly re-stretched/re-framed, but more often it's just a case of a more precise measurement at a later time. I usually go with the most recent measurement, which, in the case of works in public collections, is usually the dimensions listed by the museum, as they were the most recent party to measure the work when they acquired it. But I also sometimes note these discrepancies or at least acknowledge them, as I did in the introduction to List of works by Sam Gilliam. 19h00s (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Visual_arts#Measurements - there are actually different things to measure: sight in frame, painted area, and canvas. A 10 cm discrepancy is big though, probably a typo by somebody. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. It makes sense to use the most recent measurement. However since it's a large difference and the image in their online collections is perfectly square, it makes me lean towards it being a typo. I've contacted them for clarification. Golem08 (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Figurative vs. abstract

I am trying to make sure I am understanding my sources for a bio I am working on. Would figurative and abstract art be considered opposites.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Generally yes. There's obviously nuance to that statement, but on the whole that's considered the case. 19h00s (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

View of the World from 9th Avenue

In the details section, I present one source that claims this is a "1976 work composed in ink, pencil, colored pencil, and watercolor on paper" and another that says it is a "1975 wax crayon and graphite on paper composition". How should I adjust the infobox?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Different artworks? Different pages?..

Hello editors,

I have a question about Follow my dreams page. It is about a hand-painted mural by the italian artist TVBoy in 2022 in the city of Barcelona. This mural was originally called "Super Alexia" where you could read in the background the phrase: "Follow your dreams" with the footballer Alexia Putellas stepped out painted in a Superwoman outfit with a cape clearly visible on her back. In 2023, due to the multitude of vandalism acts, the artist decided to redo the mural, but neither the phrase nor the drawing of the player were the same. You can see the clear differences with the 2022 painting: and the 2023 updated painting:

In the Talk:Follow my dreams I proposed to make different articles because the new painting of 2023 should be treated as a completely different one even if it is located in the same place and on top of the old painting. The painting and the message in the background is totally different as you can read in the article:

Throughout history, many painters have painted over other paintings and they have never been treated as updates of these but yes as a different works. It is currently an active dispute with user Kingsif that recently moved the page (Super Alexia to Follow my dreams) and reverses the edits I made because he wants to fix the date of the old 2022 painting but the name "Follow my dreams" was created in the year 2023 not in 2022.

What do you think?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.63.174 (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Cliffs at Étretat merge proposal

I welcome any opinions on this:

Talk:Cliffs_at_Étretat#Merge_proposal

Thank you! Owunsch (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Art scholars in navboxes

Hello all. Joan arden murray, a true and noted scholar herself, brought up an interesting point when I asked her for assistance on a navbox. Should art historians and scholars known for their work about an individual artist be included on that artist's navbox? Although listed on navboxes in some other fields of endeavor, I don't recall regular use on artist navboxes but maybe they should be added. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Generally I'd say no. One can imagine how this could get out of control with Michelangelo, Rembrandt etc. And what is the infobox user really supposed to do with the information, other than a rather deceptive name-drop in their student assignment? There may well be more obscure cases where a mention of one or two scholars is justifiable in the lead, but that's enough imo. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Johnbod, it doesn't really add much to the article or provide much for the reader that wouldn't already be in the body with more context. For example, in the Sam Gilliam article, the scholar that would fit the bill for this would be Jonathan P. Binstock; but because Binstock is extensively cited in the body (given that he's the most widely cited Gilliam scholar generally), the article already introduces him and notes his contributions to the historical record. That feels like the more appropriate way to handle this if a specific scholar or small group of scholars have studied/published on a single artist deeply enough to warrant mention. 19h00s (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Apologies Randy, I mis-read your note as being about infoboxes. I think navboxes are a different story than infoboxes, and I'm actually more inclined to say that this would be an appropriate addition to individual artist navboxes. Although for the vast majority of cases, there would likely be a small number, or even just one scholar that would fit the definition of "Noted scholars" or something similar, so I'm not sure it's something that should be widespread. But I can certainly imagine situations where it does make sense to link to several authors/scholars well known for their study of or connection to an artist. 19h00s (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Alexander Stoddart

Alexander Stoddart has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The Kiss (Rodin sculpture) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for The Kiss (Rodin sculpture) to be moved to The Kiss (Rodin) and for several similar moves to be performed for other articles about sculptures. Interested members of this Wikiproject may want to participate in the discussion here. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Kiss (Rodin sculpture)#Requested move 27 November 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Kiss (Rodin sculpture)#Requested move 27 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about WikiProject banner templates

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)

Requested move at Talk:Art of Europe#Requested move 14 December 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Art of Europe#Requested move 14 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:41, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Richmond Park

Richmond Park has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Request to rename Wikimedia Commons category Conservation-restoration

There is a request to rename Wikimedia Commons category "Conservation-restoration" to "Conservation-restoration of cultural heritage objects" that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Myotus (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of works by Vincent van Gogh § Images in tables

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of works by Vincent van Gogh § Images in tables, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 21:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Project members may be interested in this sculpture-related merge discussion:

• Talk:Bell and Wind Environment

Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Queen Maria relisted

Note that this AfD has been relisted (the visual arts WikiProject was just added to the article's talk page). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Find page for this Russian icon art please

I uploaded this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MadonnaAtTheGate.jpg

If somebody could please find an appropriate Wikipedia page to put it on and put it there, I would appreciate it. Please let me know. The caption displayed with it said:

“Portraitissa or Madonna of the gate Early 20th Century Oil on wood panel with applied silver 1991.013.015 This image of the Virgin was based on one that was believed to have been painted by St. Luke. The original image was found in the Georgian Iviron monastery on Mount Athos in Greece, having been there since 999. The Portraitissa is considered miraculous: praying to it activates the powerful intercession of the Virgin Mary. According to tradition, the icon was cast into the sea by a widow to escape its seizure and destruction by iconoclasts. Instead of sinking. the icon stood upright on the water and drifted to the west. The widow's son became a monk at Mount Athos, where he recounted the story, and several years later, a monk named Gabriel from the Iviron monastery at Mount Athos recovered the icon from the sea. He placed it on the altar, but the next day it was hanging above the gate of the monastery. Gabriel then reported that the Virgin appeared to him in a vision and said she wished to be the protector of the monks. Thus the icon was permanently installed above the monastery gates and called the Portraitissa or "Gate-Keeper."”— Preceding unsigned comment added by Caravansera (talk • contribs) 01:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The Embrace (Schiele)

Hello! I would like to propose creating a Wikipedia article for Egon Schiele's 1917 painting The Embrace (Die Umarmung), also known as Lovers II. Does anyone in this project have reliable sources and is able to create the article?

Thank you in advance for any contributions. ~2025-32122-32 (talk) 10:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment: There are articles on other language Wikipedias that can be translated to create The Embrace (Die Umarmung)  [es; fr; it; nl]. Additionally, there are references located at The embrace (Q19967004). Perhaps it would be best to start an article at Draft:The Embrace (Die Umarmung) . Peaceray (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Peaceray I usually write Wikipedia articles in another language and don’t have the skills to create this one in English. I’m adding it here because it falls within this project’s scope, perhaps someone with the expertise could take care of it. Thank you in advance for any contributions! ~2025-37197-70 (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

populating Category:Sleep in art

After some initial category population by myself and Johnbod, please join in. Haven't done a full search on the category:Madonna and Child in art and category:Nativity of Jesus in art pages, which likely have category-worthy pages. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm confident I've added most worthy pages but there may be a few I've missed. I couldn't add any from Category:Nativity of Jesus in art because while many show the child lying down, they do not specifically depict him as asleep. Golem08 (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Nice work Golem08, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

A hand here, please

The long-term commonsense link List of paintings by John Everett Millais has been removed from the See also section of Ophelia (painting), and after adding it back I was reverted twice by Ceoil without explanation. One more revert on my part may be described as an edit war (not by myself, it seems more of running up against a newly-formed ownership issue), so can someone else or an admin return the long-term link? Thanks. I tried on the talk page but just ran into another finger-pointing discussion from Viriditas after pinging him because I know he is interested in the topic even though we take opposite views. Lists of paintings by their artists are standard on visual arts articles, something these editors know and are ignoring (IAR is fine when done well, this isn't that). Randy Kryn (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

(will add this to the linked discussion as well) In the discussion I'd been assured that feature review editors would oppose including something like List of paintings by John Everett Millais as a See also link in Ophelia (a famous painting by John Everett Millais). I then asked for those editors to be pinged to the discussion, and this was not done. Since WP:SEEALSO clearly supports including closely associated lists (see the 'Contents' section for a direct example of an allowed list), and I really can't imagine a counter-argument (notice that none are given in the discussion other than "I don't like it" variety, which I can sometimes sympathize with but not this time) and it's been a couple days with the good faith reverter, Ceoil, not explaining 'why' he reverted after removing this long-term See also entry. He's done this before, and I've agreed not to add back the See also link into quite a few feature articles of artists that Ceoil has competently taken under his wing (resulting, I'd assume upon my own experience with adding lists to See also, in a great deal of lost readership for those lists). But when he did this to a Millais, naw, that's one artist too far, and without his giving any reason whatsoever and in compliance with WP:SEEALSO, I'll add it back for the third time but won't revert if it is reverted again so as keep out of edit war territory (no-Wikipedians land). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum

In the museum's article, Under the heading Selected works in the collection, we display 31 images. That seems like too many, and I suggest that we weed it down to 2 dozen or less. The question is, which ones are the least important/representative ones shown? Or should we just eliminate ones where the artist is represented by two or more images? Please respond on the museum article's Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:History_of_Asian_art#Partial_merge_to_Asian_art_needed

There is a discussion here as to whether Asian art should continue to redirect to History of Asian art, as it has done for years, or be turned into a sort of disam page like this. Comments welcome. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Category:Caves in art

A new category containing paintings and sculptures depicting caves. Please add to it, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, has become well populated. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Draft:The Embrace (Die Umarmung)

I've created Draft:The Embrace (Die Umarmung) and would like to expand it further. There are additional sources available, including:  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ; . I'd greatly appreciate any contributions from those interested. ~2025-41850-20 (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Several of these links have nothing to do with The Embrace (German: Die Umarmung). Some seem to refer to another painting Cardinal and Nun (The Embrace). Please repost only the relevant links. Peaceray (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Christmas quiz, sort of...

at Talk:Massacre_of_the_Innocents#Infobox_image. Please respond there. Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Guidance on public art inclusions in existing city/town/community articles

Hey everyone!

Before I reach out to WP:USCITIES to ask for consensus, I'm first trying to find out from this awesome project if there are guidelines that already exist in regards to the inclusion of public art (murals, sculptures, et al) in city, town, and small community articles. I understand that the Visual Arts Project focuses on artwork articles, but perhaps there's a few of you awesome editors who might be more in the know.

By pure coincidence, either as a reader or as an editor at Wikipedia, I've recently come across a few strongly-purposed, but experienced editors, who, at the least, seem to feel that mentioning public art in United States community articles (usually medium-sized cities and smaller) needs to be simple (it exists, nothing more) and at the most worrying, that any inclusion of public artworks are completely unwarranted and out of scope. Rarely is the removal cited to an existing WP or MOS, just vague and unhelpful "unnecessary" or "not notable" summary edits, despite WP:NOTEWORTHY.

My concern is public art matters at a local level, especially if it's reliably sourced. Under the standards of an "Arts and culture" section, minor artworks can simply be mentioned, but larger works and those of larger, historical connections or context to the community, should be expanded upon. A couple sentences or up to a small paragraph, that depending on importance and sourcing, includes such details as one would have in a conversation about art: title, medium, dimensions, artist/ownership, funding, and location. So long as the provided information is backed up by reliable sourcing, artworks not notable enough for their own pages can and should be added for context.

Various guidelines encourage contextual additions to articles. For example, background sections in history-related articles, recreation sections in articles on parks, or the exciting world of tax levies on infrastructure pages. Doing so helps to give a better overall view of the topic so long as it doesn't deviate from the focus of the page.

My thanks for any help you can provide!

OlympiaBuebird (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Whitewashing in art discussion

There is a discussion about possible bias and factual inaccuracy on the talk page of this article. ★Trekker (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Getty Center

Getty Center has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Liberty in popular culture

Members of this WikiProject may be interested in this deletion discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Father Hesburgh and Father Joyce, Word of Life

Resolved

Father Hesburgh and Father Joyce and Word of Life (mural) have been tagged for possible merge. Feedback welcome! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Note that Word of Life is also known as Touchdown Jesus, a touchdown touchstone of Notre Dame. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

David Tinker

If anyone is looking for a project, I just came across this substantial obituary on artist David Tinker (currently a redirect) on whom there is no article in The Guardian. He would make a good addition to our coverage. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Artificial intelligence visual art#Requested move 11 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Artificial intelligence visual art#Requested move 11 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 04:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Review requested: Draft:Monuments (exhibition)

If anyone has time to review, I just submitted a draft for review detailing the Monuments exhibition on view at MOCA in LA right now. Hoping to get it on main space before the exhibition closes in May so it can be a DYK while it's still on view. Thanks to anyone with the time/capacity to review! 19h00s (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Requested Move at Talk:Generative artificial intelligence#Requested move 6 March 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Generative artificial intelligence#Requested move 6 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Generative artificial intelligence#Requested move 6 March 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Generative artificial intelligence#Requested move 6 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HurricaneZeta alt (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Unreferenced article

The following article is currently completely unreferenced:

• Painted ceiling

Expert assistance would be appreciated in remedying this. Thank you. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Done, more or less. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Johnbod. I have just come across a related article which is currently completely unreferenced, which is:

• Prophet Daniel (Michelangelo)

Cielquiparle (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Review requested: Draft:TJ Norris

Hi all — I've submitted a draft on TJ Norris, a multidisciplinary artist active since the late 1980s, with sources including The Oregonian, The Boston Globe, and The Wire. I'm the subject (full disclosure on user page). Would much appreciate any eyes on it. Thanks! IntegersInSpace (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)