This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Visual arts This page is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22

/Contemporary Art /Archive 1 • May 2005 – Nov 2006 /Archive 2 • Nov 2006 – May 2007 /Archive 3 • Jun 2007 (Infoart cleanup) /Archive 4 • Jun 2007 – Dec 2007 (Image sizing) /Archive 5 • Jan 2008 – Jun 2008 /Archive 6 • Jul 2008 – Dec 2008 /Archive 7 • Jan 2009 – Jun 2009 /Archive 8 • Jul 2009 – Jan 2010 /Archive 9 • Feb 2010 – Jun 2010 /Archive 10 • Jun 2010 – Oct 2010 /Archive 11 • Oct 2010 – Feb 2012 /Archive 12 • Feb 2012 – Feb 2013 /Archive 13 • Feb 2013 – Sep 2013 /Archive 14 • Sep 2013 – Feb 2014 /Archive 15 • Feb 2014 – Jan 2015 /Archive 16 • Jan 2015 – Jul 2016 /Archive 17 • Jul 2016 – Jul 2017 /Archive 18 • Jul 2017 – Oct 2018 /Archive 19 • Oct 2018 – Dec 2019 /Archive 20 • Jan 2020 – Mar 2022 /Archive 21 • Mar 2022 – Jan 2025 /Archive 22 • Jan 2025 –

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3.

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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."”

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

I've created Draft:The Embrace (Die Umarmung) and would like to expand it further. There are additional sources available, including: [1] ; [2] ; [3] ; [4] ; [5] ; [6] ; [7] ; [8] ; [9] ; [10]. I'd greatly appreciate any contributions from those interested. ~2025-41850-20 (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]