Template talk:Infobox artist: Difference between revisions
Robert McClenon (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
'''Description''': the number of existing or surviving paintings, drawings, engravings or other attributed art works |
'''Description''': the number of existing or surviving paintings, drawings, engravings or other attributed art works |
||
The following |
The following infobox parameter would tell how many paintings survived. For example El Greco has 500 existing paintings. |
||
This will help historians understand how many paintings are attributed to each artist, Monet has 2500 existing works. |
This will help historians understand how many paintings are attributed to each artist, Monet has 2500 existing works. |
||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
{{anchor|rfc_875882B}}<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 22:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1632002478}} |
{{anchor|rfc_875882B}}<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 22:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1632002478}} |
||
I need to '''Establish a consensus''' to change the template artist info box to add the parameter existing works see above.[[User:Tzim78|Tzim78]] ([[User talk:Tzim78|talk]]) 19:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
[[Template:Infobox_artist|Infobox_artist]] |
[[Template:Infobox_artist|Infobox_artist]] |
||
| Line 60: | Line 61: | ||
*'''Oppose''' {{sbb}} Too many obstacles to arriving at a reliable number, too many vagaries of what might constitute a work - as opposed to preparatory, or exploratory 'doodles' - which may well be different in the case of each artist and too complex a subject to reduce to an infobox number - as outlined by DGG and Netherzone. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 07:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''' {{sbb}} Too many obstacles to arriving at a reliable number, too many vagaries of what might constitute a work - as opposed to preparatory, or exploratory 'doodles' - which may well be different in the case of each artist and too complex a subject to reduce to an infobox number - as outlined by DGG and Netherzone. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 07:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose''' {{sbb}} - Reasonable information to include in the body of the article, along with any discussion of uncertainty. Infoboxes are not the place for stuff that requires discussion. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''' {{sbb}} - Reasonable information to include in the body of the article, along with any discussion of uncertainty. Infoboxes are not the place for stuff that requires discussion. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC) |
||
===This proposal was added to the Village Pump to establish a speedy Consensus=== |
|||
*'''Oppose''' (and this should have been raised at the Visual arts project, not here). In many/most cases the numbers are uncertain, especially for drawings. There are often many disagreements as to attribution. Too detailed for an infobox, adding to clutter. What do you do for artists who are still working? Bad idea all round. By all means add the info to the article, but not box-suitable. [[El Greco]] actually illustrates the problems very well, as the number of his paintings is highly controversial: [[El_Greco#Debates_on_attribution]] gives several numbers, none very close to your 500 ''at all''. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 20:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' per Johnbod, and agree that this is not the appropriate forum. This discussion can be moved either to [[Template talk:Infobox artist]] or [[WT:Visual arts]], but it shouldn't remain here. I doubt that an RfC will be necessary, as I forecast [[WP:snow|snow]]. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 20:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' per discussion. Counting the doodles Picasso would do to pay for his dinners he has a gillion or more artworks. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 20:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*This is an invalid RfC - there is no statement and no timestamp, see [[WP:RFCST]]. If it's related to [[Template talk:Infobox artist#Template-protected edit request on 13 August 2021]], then the whole thread also seems to be in breach of [[WP:MULTI]]. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 23:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' This is why info-boxes, which I happily use for individual works, are unsuited to artist bios, especially late medieval/early modern, when, very often, almost nothing is known about the artist, and attribution is hotly debated. Tzim78 is obv acting IGF, but also see snow here. [[User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] ([[User talk:Ceoil|talk]]) 23:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' Numbers would be all over the place depending on the source cited, for reasons already mentioned. Better dealt with in the body of the article. [[User:Ewulp|Ewulp]] ([[User talk:Ewulp|talk]]) 00:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' - Too much room for error. There is no central database or clearinghouse of such statistics for artists whose works have not been cataloged across institutions, countries and continents. That is especially true of contemporary artists whose work has not yet been cataloged by an archivist or those without a catalogue raisonné. (Thousands of artists.) These statistics belong in individual articles not the infobox. [[User:Netherzone|Netherzone]] ([[User talk:Netherzone|talk]]) 03:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' - This can go in the body of the article. Besides, starting two RFCs on the same subject is [[WP:FORUNMSHOP|forum shopping]] and is deprecated. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Thank You for Your Responses, a consensus was not established. This issue is closed.'''[[User:Tzim78|Tzim78]] ([[User talk:Tzim78|talk]]) 11:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 11:45, 16 August 2021
| Infoboxes | ||||
| ||||
| Biography: Arts and Entertainment | |||||||
| |||||||
| Arts | ||||
| ||||
Auction Record
May I suggest the artist's auction record for inclusion in the Artist Infobox? The highest price attained in a public auction can indicate the artist's percieved significance within the global art market, and is already commonly included in the artist's page under the subheading 'Market' or 'Valuation'. NovaBlueWave (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
para conflict
Frietjes, the {{infobox person}} parameter conflict check is flagging parents/mother/father here but I don't see a problem. (I've worked around in this article by changing parents to father. Thanks. MB 18:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- MB, should be fixed now. Frietjes (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Artist's Signature
Frietjes (I'm not sure who to tag here but you seem in charge to my newbie eyes haha), don't you think it would be useful to add a signature line on the artist's infobox? They have it for politicians like here but it seems to me even more relevant for artists. Unless there is something I dont see. Thanks in advance for commenting!--APG1984 (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- APG1984, there have been previous discussions on this topic that have not reached a consensus on adding it, eg. Template_talk:Infobox_artist/Archive_2#Signature_Parameter. For that reason I don't think it would be a good idea to add it without having a more conclusive discussion, perhaps an RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- oh wow. ok;) Thanks for the quick reply. --APG1984 (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Change 'nationality' to 'citizenship'
Proposal to change as in other infoboxes - for example in Infobox person, Infobox scientist, and Infobox writer. 'nationality' can be a bit misleading, and in my opinion it's better to have infoboxes with the same parameters that provide most relevant and non-controversial info.Artem.G (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 13 August 2021
Request to add info box parameter: existing works
Description: the number of existing or surviving paintings, drawings, engravings or other attributed art works
The following infobox parameter would tell how many paintings survived. For example El Greco has 500 existing paintings.
This will help historians understand how many paintings are attributed to each artist, Monet has 2500 existing works.
existing works = 500 paintings survived
Tzim78 (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}}template. firefly ( t · c ) 11:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I need to Establish a consensus to change the template artist info box to add the parameter existing works see above.Tzim78 (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- You can't mean that El Greco has 500 existing paintings--you probably mean he has about 500 existing paintings. He also has works in other media, such as his surviving drawings, architecture and possibly sculpture. And as for paintings, our article on him indicates there are several different opinions--authorities give numbers between 829 snd 137. Our article Art of ElGreco doesn't give a number but accepts as authentic early paintings which El Greco says are generally no longer so regarded. Our List of works of El Greco discusses the controversy, and in another section gives the number 500 based on an unreliable travel guide, which is an highly inappropriate source to resolve such a scholarly controversy. List of paints by Claude Monet quotes "nearly 2000 " with an authoritative reference. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- We need a feature on the artist infobox that quickly tells viewers how many existing works each artist hasTzim78 (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- This does not seem necessary to me, and that there is too much room for error. There is no central database or clearinghouse of such statistics for artists whose works have not been cataloged thusly across countries and continents. That is especially true of contemporary artists whose work has not yet been cataloged by an archivist or those without a catalogue raisonné. (Thousands of artists.) It seems that such statistics belong in individual articles if RS exist for them, but changing the infobox template is not necessary. My two cents, Netherzone (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- He has opened a Second Front at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_Improve_Template:Infobox_artist_by_adding_parameter_for_existing_works... - opposition there is even stronger. Won't happen. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose (Summoned by bot) Too many obstacles to arriving at a reliable number, too many vagaries of what might constitute a work - as opposed to preparatory, or exploratory 'doodles' - which may well be different in the case of each artist and too complex a subject to reduce to an infobox number - as outlined by DGG and Netherzone. Pincrete (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose (Summoned by bot) - Reasonable information to include in the body of the article, along with any discussion of uncertainty. Infoboxes are not the place for stuff that requires discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
This proposal was added to the Village Pump to establish a speedy Consensus
- Oppose (and this should have been raised at the Visual arts project, not here). In many/most cases the numbers are uncertain, especially for drawings. There are often many disagreements as to attribution. Too detailed for an infobox, adding to clutter. What do you do for artists who are still working? Bad idea all round. By all means add the info to the article, but not box-suitable. El Greco actually illustrates the problems very well, as the number of his paintings is highly controversial: El_Greco#Debates_on_attribution gives several numbers, none very close to your 500 at all. Johnbod (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per Johnbod, and agree that this is not the appropriate forum. This discussion can be moved either to Template talk:Infobox artist or WT:Visual arts, but it shouldn't remain here. I doubt that an RfC will be necessary, as I forecast snow. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per discussion. Counting the doodles Picasso would do to pay for his dinners he has a gillion or more artworks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- This is an invalid RfC - there is no statement and no timestamp, see WP:RFCST. If it's related to Template talk:Infobox artist#Template-protected edit request on 13 August 2021, then the whole thread also seems to be in breach of WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose This is why info-boxes, which I happily use for individual works, are unsuited to artist bios, especially late medieval/early modern, when, very often, almost nothing is known about the artist, and attribution is hotly debated. Tzim78 is obv acting IGF, but also see snow here. Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Numbers would be all over the place depending on the source cited, for reasons already mentioned. Better dealt with in the body of the article. Ewulp (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - Too much room for error. There is no central database or clearinghouse of such statistics for artists whose works have not been cataloged across institutions, countries and continents. That is especially true of contemporary artists whose work has not yet been cataloged by an archivist or those without a catalogue raisonné. (Thousands of artists.) These statistics belong in individual articles not the infobox. Netherzone (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - This can go in the body of the article. Besides, starting two RFCs on the same subject is forum shopping and is deprecated. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank You for Your Responses, a consensus was not established. This issue is closed.Tzim78 (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
