Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts

Intervention Art

Hi there, I have made suggestions in the talk page to improve this article... b'art homme 19:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Is "Inverted Earth" Article a Candidate for AFD?

@Licks-rocks: In Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology, I proposed that the article about Inverted Earth to be a prime candidate for AFD because the concept of an "inverted Earth" is a trivial, nonnotable idea lacking any real scientific application in the Earth sciencesand an apparently off the wall and geologically unique topic.

Since this idea started out as a work of art, it is suggested, that I obtain comments on its notability from editors at Wikiproject Visuals Art since the editors at WikiProject Geology lack the needed expertise in visual arts. Would this article be a prime candidate for AFD? If it is agreed that it is suitable for AFD, I will try to figure out how to do it. Paul H. (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The Jimmy Carter statue page about to be devoid of its photograph

Link to the image

I removed the speedy deletion tag at Statue of Jimmy Carter's Commons image page, asking the nominator to both go through a deletion discussion and add the image to Wikipedia. This would ruin the page's aesthetic quality just as the subject is literally dying. Can we try and save this one from the Commons Curse, or add it to Wikipedia under fair use? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Now photograph is up for deletion. This statue is the main artistic depiction of Jimmy Carter, anywhere in the United States or the world. Since this image illustrates the article, keeping it on English Wikipedia would easily meet fair use. More at the link. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The original creator of the image uploaded it here, hopefully that's enough to keep it on English Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Three Soldiers images to be removed...

...can someone upload these for fair use on English Wikipedia, especially the main image. Thanks. The deletion discussion may be important per JWilz12345 if this WikiProject would ask the United States Congress to make a change in its law (maybe through Speaker of the House McCarthy's office). Randy Kryn (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

JWilz12345, the law change should be discussed and organized. Maybe Jimbo can assist in this. Some of the Republicans may be interested in changing the law, especially if pointed out that losing things like this image would be a factor. Reminiscent of Martin Luther King's family not allowing use of his and Hall's "I Have a Dream" speech to be user per copyright. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's a map of freedom of panorama for reference, note that Canada, England, Australia, India, and even China has it for public artworks, but not the U.S. This can be changed. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn this is a global effort and not just an effort by enwiki users. Best to air your call at meta-wiki project. Note that there is an extinct proposal on Commons, at c:Commons:Freedom of panorama campaign. Ping the users who responded to my concern on this Village Pump forum as well as one user who talked to me at my Meta-wiki talk page: @Kaldari, Jmabel, and Slowking4:. I'm actually supportive of any actions or advocacies made by Wikipedians of countries with no FOP, like the South African moves and the advocacy in our country. Should the U.S. now have complete FOP, the thousands of deleted photos on Commons, as well as hundreds of deleted enwiki local files, can be undeleted and enwiki articles be enriched with illustrations. The open question, are there any user from the U.S. willing to make this very challenging move? I would expect big roadblocks for such advocacy in the U.S.: note the Gaylord v. United States case as well as several other cases which I included at Freedom of panorama#United States. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• First and foremost, can someone move File:The Three Soliders, Vietnam Veterans Memorial.jpg into English Wikipedia before it's removed from Commons and list it as fair use for its article. As for the worldwide effort, the focus should be on the U.S. for English Wikipedia as, mentioned above, all the other major English speaking nations already have the right. Thanks for your long answer, maybe time, with the new House of Representatives, to follow-up on this. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• I feel encouraged whenever I see a fellow American care about freedom of panorama. I want to be cautiously optimistic about the efforts to grant FOP to the Philippines and South Africa. I don't have high hopes for this Congress to pass anything substantial but for freedom of panorama to be more like Canada or the UK, you'd have to do a new copyright bill, and copyright falls under the Judiciary committee. House Judiciary Chairman is Jim Jordan and I think House Judiciary probably has other thoughts on their mind other than changing copyright laws. Freedom of panorama is probably more important than anything they would do this session, but there will be sculptors and artistic craftsmen that will no doubt strongly oppose any change to the law. Hopefully, efforts in Philippines and South Africa bring positive results. Abzeronow (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Henry Moore

I have nominated Henry Moore for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Aurochs has an RFC

Aurochs has an RFC for how to design its cladogram. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 89.206.112.13 (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue

This article has uses svg art of a geometrical representation of the paintings in question rather than an image of the paintings themselves. You can open up the svg and see it's just code for three broad banks of colors for each of the paintings. The real paintings have far more imperfections: https://www.wikiart.org/en/barnett-newman/whos-afraid-of-red-yellow-and-blue-i-1970

I discovered this because the paintings have been coming up in online discourse a lot recently. Would it be possible to get a high-quality image of the paintings on here? There was a prior image, I believe, which was deleted in 2018 per this deletion request, which is why I'm loath to pick one myself. Brirush (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit wars on 'One source' tag, and museum sources as "primary"

There have been a few edit wars lately, the latest at Self-Portrait. Between the Clock and the Bed., over adding one source tags. I've thought that museum sources are enough to assert Wikipedia notability and a one-source tag is not needed. A similar question has arisen lately about if a museum source for a painting is a primary source, which I've maintained they are not. Comments welcome, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Why not just add another source? — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 12:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not the point. Probably hundreds if not thousands of visual arts pages have proven notability by listing museum sources (which are not primary), so if editors are tagging these pages with cluttersome unneeded tags it would be best to have a link to assure them that the museum source is enough. This has been a question at some draft articles as well, so it is a guideline which should be clearly described and listed at WP:NOTABILITY as a visual arts notability stance. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

As much as hate to say it, both sides have good arguments, but in spite of that equivalence, I don’t think tagging is the way forward. Instead, there should be a minimal effort by taggers to find a source. If they can’t find one, then they should be allowed to add the tag. My issue with drive-by tagging is that the burden is shifted to the editor from the tagger, and that’s where I draw the line. If you are going to put the effort into tagging pages, then at least put the minimal effort into trying to fix the problem. That’s always been my position and I wish the community would accept it as standard procedure. In other words, maintenance tags should only be added after the tagger has tried to address the problem, not before. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The point is that, especially for major museums, the owning museum is generally the best and fullest source, and certainly the easiest to find online. In the case of basic things like measurements and technical examinations, all other sources normally depend on museum information, since art historians are not allowed to conduct their own intrusive research. They are not primary. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to change the default format of galleries

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Galleries. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)