Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arts/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Wikipedia DVD 2008

Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_CD_Selection/additions_and_updates#Art for proposed changes and update so far from the 2007 Wikipedia DVD to the 2008 Wikipedia DVD. This DVD has quite a wide circulation amongst schools so any help in choosing the most appropriate articles whilst excluding details of artist's deviancies would be very gratefully received. --BozMo talk 20:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WP Arts Template?

Is there a WikiProject Arts template for talk pages? Most WikiProjects have a template that states "This article is within the scope of WikiProject [name here], [description of WikiProject]." and adds a quality scale and importance rating, but I can't find one for this WikiProject. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 17:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No, a number of descendant WikiProjects have their own talk page templates with the facility for rating importance and class. These include Dance (this also includes Ballet) - see Template:Wikiproject Dance. This uses the ability to have descendant projects included in the parent (Ballet in Dance). There are a number of templates for Music and its descendant projects but these are not linked. WikiPedia:WikiProject Theatre.

There are quite a few templates - most unrelated. The template for the Australian WikiProject illustrates what can be done. Paul foord (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Category for non-existent Performing arts project

There is a Category:WikiProject Performing arts, but no Wikipedia:WikiProject Performing arts. I guess the sub-cats & WikiProject pages should be moved up into Category:WikiProject Arts. Paul foord (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Textile Arts

This portal is currently undergoing its second Portal Peer Review, and your comments/feedback would be appreciated at the portal peer review subpage. Cirt (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Categorisation - Art WikiProjects vs WikiProject Arts

User:Stepheng3 unilaterally reparented Dance, Circus, Music, etc WikiProject categories to Category:Art WikiProjects. These naturally are parented by WikiProject Arts and thus Category:WikiProject Arts. I have asked for the rationale for the change[1]. -- Paul foord (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm for changing back again. Ty 11:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Seconded...Modernist (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I see the "performing arts" project category, previously an intermediate step, has also been removed. Johnbod (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please Recognize Invention in the Arts and Visual Arts Appropriately!

Hello, Invention is extremly important in the arts, as is inventive thinking. The Invention page should be inserted in the arts project. Let's do this. Having this Invention page only in the technology project is a narrow minded view of both invention and art. Please read the Artistic Invention section on this Invention page and please look over the references provided for this Artistic Invention section. Among these references, you might take a look at the books: Picasso and the Invention of Cubism by Pepe Karmel (2003); Leonardo da Vinci: Artist, Scientist, Inventor by Simona Cremante (2005); and Patenting Art and Entertainment by Gregory Aharonian and Richard Stim, (2004), as well as the website for The Lemelson Invention and Innovation Center of the Smithsonian Institution at http://www.invention.smithsonian.org/home/. Although the term "invention" encompasses many more creative works than just those that fit the very strict governmental requirements for a patent, there are many inventions in the arts that have been patented and that are currently patent pending, some examples are listed in the references on the Invention page but many more can easily be found at the US Patent Office website: www.USPTO.gov.

As a second request, I see that the directory of Culture and the arts, Wikiprojects lists two areas of the arts, "Music" and "Literature and Writing" but it leaves out the huge category of Art, Design and Architecture which might collectively be called Visual Art. WOW, what a gaping hole!

Lets fix these problems. Thank you! --Sara USA (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Whereis this Directory thingy? All these topics have projects - see the portal. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the link to the Directory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory As I hope you can see at this link, the directory of Culture and the arts, two areas of the arts, "Music" and "Literature and Writing" but it leaves out the huge category of Art, Design and Architecture which might collectively be called Visual Art. Can this be fixed and can the Invention page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention be inserted into the arts project (see my note above)? --Sara USA (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes that is a very badly set-out list, as I have commented here. But the stuff is all on the subpage if you click the main header. Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! It seems like that issue is getting resolved, however still no progress on the first issue in my initial note (directly above), putting the Invention page in the arts project. Please read the section on Artistic Invention (e.g., invention in art, design and architecture) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention. Can you or someone else put this Invention page in the Arts project where is should be? Invention and inventive thinking are vial to to the arts? --Sara USA (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If no one comments objecting I would add it yourself after a few days. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added to the list of visual arts projects on this project page. Not all of them are active however. I see there are lots of omissions for music projects as well . . . --Kleinzach (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure where to insert the Invention page into the Arts project. Can somebody with more experience on Wikipedia make a suggestion do it please? What do you think? --Sara USA (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand. Are you referring to categories? Reg. --Kleinzach (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No this is not about categories. If you go to the Invention page and click on the tab "discussion" of the Invention article, you will see a major sign saying "This article is within the scope of the Technology WikiProject, a group related to the the study of Technology. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks." This Invention page needs to be within the scope of the Arts WikiProject too. Having it only under technology is totally narrow minded, e.g, just read the Artistic Invention section of the Invention article for proof. --Sara USA (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. We are talking about banners - but I don't think the Arts WikiProject has one, because it is an umbrella project (for coordinating the various arts projects), and doesn't do assessments. --Kleinzach (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not just about a banner!--Sara USA (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I don't understand what you are trying to say, or more to the point why you are saying it here. If you can explain I will try to help you. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject The Invention Wikipedia page should be inserted under the management of the arts project. Currently it is not. Perhaps "Invention in the Arts" it should be a category in the Arts Project, as it does not fit into any the categories that presently exist. Invention is important in the arts. In contemporary art for example, success is defined by breaking into new territory. --Sara USA (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Abstract art and Dankany

There's an editor working under at least one account and one IP address making some major changes to the Abstract art page. He seems to have a specific issue with me (although it was actually Modernist who reverted one of his changes initially--but I got the blame!). Anyway, I won't wade into this yet as this editor may not respond well to my input, but there seems to be some major manual of style issues as well as unsourced info being added (keeping in mind that this article had problems to begin with). If anyone could drop in and have a look at his changes and maybe send him a friendly welcome, it might help. Again, I'm reluctant to do so as it may seem provocative on my part. freshacconcispeaktome 18:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree, some of the comments are beginning to look like an attack against freshacconci I'd best not step in for similar reasons, however the IP additions or the ones by Dankany are not helpful, or referenced. I'll keep the idea in mind though and if the attacks continue I will step in. This article needs expansion. Modernist (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've left a message for the user. Ty 23:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please keep conversation in one place - it's duplicated on Visual Arts talk page. I suggest continuing there, if necessary. Ty 00:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Chinese painter Pu Ru

I created a stub about Pu Ru; I thought this was one good place to ask for improvement to the article. B7T (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you need a more specific project: Visual arts for example. --Kleinzach (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm, somehow I thought I had written this there instead of here; thanks! B7T (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Main page pic deleted

I notice one of the pics on the main page was deleted last May! We might as well have more pics going further down too. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific. I don't understand the situation. Main page pics can't be fair use. Ty 02:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There has been a blank placeholder here for a year. But I have changed it now - see the history. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

FAR

Scooby-Doo has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ultra! 15:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vital articles

Any editor with a broad knowledge of the arts is invited to take a look at Wikipedia:Vital articles and offer suggestions on how to improve the list of 1000 vital Wikipedia articles, as well as on the process of choosing them. It suffers from a severe lack of attention and POV editing. — goethean ॐ 01:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Expert in field invitation of Art related articles

Hey all! I am inviting anyone that has free time and knowledge to have a look at this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/GeneralxHotlist and see if they can help in any way in terms of creating an article about the Art related topics. I am not sure if it would be better if Art and Architecture be grouped as one per civilization or if they should be divided into 2 (for example Babylonian art & Babylonian Architeture) but I figure this (along with the Architecture wikiproject) would have an individual capable enough to make that decision. I am no expert in the field so yeah, otherwise I would arrange the articles myself. Any thoughts or coments are welcome and by all means, if you feel you are up for the task, be bold and give those articles a go. Cheers! Calaka (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

'Next month's featured article and featured picture on the Arts Portal'

This no longer seems to be operating. Should we remove the box on the top of the project page? --Kleinzach 01:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible category

I would suggest a category for Art Related Charities. Please see:

• Empty bowls
• Artists for Humanity
• The Relief Project

Thank you for your consideration. GwenW (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the rationale behind this? Why would such a category be useful? --Kleinzach 10:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable - NB we already have Category:Arts foundations Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is anybody there?

Does anyone watch this page (apart from Kleinzach & myself)? Johnbod (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but no-one ever answers if you say: 'Is anybody there?' --Kleinzach 08:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think we may have a 100% rollcall. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't seem to be doing much. Ty 23:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't, but I will now..Modernist (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an umbrella project. It is necessary for inter-arts project matters, but doesn't do assessments. It's appropriate that it's inactive for much of the time. No problem. P.S. Thanks to Tyrenius and Modernist for proving me wrong! --Kleinzach 07:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Necessary how? What inter-arts project matters, and why would this be an appropriate place to raise them, given people from only 2 or 3 of the twenty or more specialized arts projects appear to be watching the page? As it is people occasionally post notices here, which is clearly mainly a waste of their time. I think it would be only fair to warn them of this, but Kleinzach objects. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The main page has had three human edits in three months. This page has just had four participants, three of whom are in regular contact anyway at WPVA. Ty 12:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly, I'm not sure why I would come to this page, given the more immediate and practical use WPVA provides. Perhaps as a kind of High Council powwow station, that seems irrelevant now but you never know....what the future might bring to the art projects. Modernist (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of this project

This project is for all the arts - not just the visual ones - it includes the performing arts, literature etc., see the structure here. It is the parent of a series of important mid-level projects. ('Arts' was most active in 2006 when the category structure was being created. The archives provide references for this.) The parent of Arts is 'Culture' (which is less active than Arts). Eliminating 'Arts' and merging it with 'Culture' would remove structural clarity from this section of WP, affecting the viability of category trees, and thereby project boundaries and bannering etc. --Kleinzach 02:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any suggestion of eliminating it, simply putting a notice that users would be better off leaving a message on a more specific project page.[2] This seems like an eminently sensible idea. Ty 02:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Putting up a private notice saying "THIS PROJECT IS BARELY ACTIVE" is not the way it's done on WP. Personal statements are signed, or proper notices such as Template:Inactive are used. This was neither. Of course we always want people to post messages on the most appropriate project. If that needs to be emphasized with a suitable community-sanctioned notice that's fine by me. --Kleinzach 03:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should make a list of articles still needing work or help - in the various disciplines, related to the Arts, lets see what develops....Modernist (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No, unfortunately I don't have any spare lifetimes. Nice suggestion though. --Kleinzach 05:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So we all agree that it would be helpful to put up a notice. We can, as the only participants currently active here, sanction a notice if we wish. Perhaps you could suggest the form it should take instead of the form you don't like. I suggest the following. Ty 09:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This project co-ordinates all arts projects: see the main page for a list. Posts about specific subjects (e.g. music or visual arts etc.) are best made to the relevant project, rather than here.

Looks good to me. Johnbod (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems more useful than my suggestion...Modernist (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Added, since we seem to have agreement. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC

Aesthetics

See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Aesthetics

In the interest of increased collaboration and communication, I have inserted the "aesthetics task force" as a subproject of WP:ARTS. I hope people feel free to use and contribute to the resources of the task force. The Aesthetics navigation sidebar points to this page for discussion on arts. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a bold and interesting idea — but where is it? Is it a page or a real task force? Please tell us more! --Kleinzach 00:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sadly it exists mainly in its many talk page banners. Some of us have been awaiting dramatic results in relevant articles for over a year .... Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No deadline. There's nothing sad about it. It's a wonderful tool for organizing articles in aesthetics. It makes it easier for academics to find the subject matter they know about, etcetera. I'm sorry you feel that way about it Johnbod. You are doomed to WP disappointment. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice idea of the mind, but in reality I am still skeptical after all this time...Modernist (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately nobody is forced to participate. Say folks, sorry someone peed in your corn flakes. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Aesthetics you say? Right...Modernist (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess "peeing in your corn flakes" is postmodern, so you wouldn't appreciate that.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder whether this would be better under Philosophy? The Arts Project doesn't banner or assess so it's not really structured to have task forces. Also I don't know of any of the latter that belong to more than one project. --Kleinzach 05:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the intention here is to offer editors resources. In the case of issues arising, there is a place to go to get help, etcetera. It does not matter if the arts project banner is used. Some may have more than one banner, but that is not so terrible. We can make it our task to minimize the overlap. I don't think there's much to it other than offering a link to the arts main discussion area. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's not a real task force, I think it would be best to remove it. Having structures that are not what they claim to be is confusing, particularly for new editors who are trying to understand how WP works. If you just want to publicize your group and invite new members then posting messages to relevant projects would be fine. Perhaps I can make some suggestions? --Kleinzach 23:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Real task force? Say listen, we obviously are living on different planets here. First of all no one can force others to edit or otherwise participate in WP. The most that we can do is maximize our resources so that people will be directed to articles that need help, and connect with others. If you are looking to WP and crying about how no one is editing enough, that is really unclear on the concept, and a big waste of time and mental effort. In providing a task force we make it possible to develop a community of editors. Yes it is a real task force, and it is my hope that it gets better. At least I'm doing something about it instead of panning it. Certainly the arts group is welcome to remove all association if that what people think about it. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Tone it down, - WP:Civil and WP:NPA - read them...Modernist (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Why exactly do you now feel the need to jump on me with wp:civil? I think this response is way oversensitive. It seems to me that I have made a good faith effort to A) build bridges between groups B) provide resources to editors C) help new editors to be less confused. I'm sorry you don't see it that way. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: a task force is a particular structure on WP. For an example see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Compositions task force. If an editing effort on WP is not structured like that, then it is not a task force. That's all I was trying to say. --Kleinzach 23:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a properly constituted TF, part of the Philosophy project. It just doesn't seem to have been very active. Johnbod (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. If it's part of the Philosophy project, why is it being discussed here? I don't get it. --Kleinzach 05:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think he's just trying to get it more exposure, which is fair enough in itself. Whether it can or should be presented as a sub-project of 2 projects I don't know, though in reality i can't see it mattering much either way. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think he is just trying to get it more exposure. One thing I know from having seen the Philosophy Project over time is that the amount and importance of its content is big, but the number of editors working on it is much smaller. Philosophy is a rather difficult and abstruse subject, after all. Oftentimes, that in effect leaves that content almost unsupervised and unattended to. The content relating to aesthetics probably does directly come within the scope of "arts", as "philosophy of arts". If it can get more people involved in developing that core content, the better for all. If it proves unsuccessful, then there's nothing really lost by having the name listed there anyway. John Carter (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT

Apologies for the notice, but this is being posted to every WikiProject to avoid accusations of systemic bias. Hiding T 13:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Arts

Anyone maintaining it? feydey (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't look like it, does it. Maybe the portal should be put on autorotation, so it wouldn't require monthly updates. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's filled in for the rest of the month, even if it isn't necessarily a thing of beauty. Maybe autorotation wouldn't be a bad idea if there are difficulties in keeping it updated. John Carter (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Opera portal at Featured portal candidates

Portal:Opera is being considered for featured quality status, at the Featured portal candidates process. Comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Opera. Cirt (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)