Infoboxes
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes 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.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This template is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

	Arts
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.ArtsWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsTemplate:WikiProject ArtsWikiProject Arts

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 92 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Infobox_artist

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• Thank You for Your Responses, a consensus was not established. This issue is closed.Tzim78 (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i noticed twice today presence of "musical artist" as short description below person name. Kathleen Parlow and Marie Hall does not contain Short description, yet they show short description? is this intentional? চামুণ্ডা/ashtamatrikas^{[আলাপ/talk]} 06:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are using {{Infobox musical artist.. not Infobox artist! Ask there. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: excuse. i did not notice. Brāhmī • tagboard  • (always start discussion using {{u|ashtamatrikas}}) 15:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{infobox person}} has a footnotes parameter, which allows citations for the information in the infobox. Is there a reason not to have one in this template? See this edit to "Norman Lindsay" for an example where it would be useful. grendel|khan 08:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

|footnotes= at {{infobox person}} is explicitly not for citations - see its documentation. Citations in both templates should be added immediately after the claim being cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be reasonable to add a parameter for “position(s)” or similar? Many artists hold significant positions within institutions like galleries or art schools. I’ve noticed people have been adding these positions under |known_for=, which is wrong (…right?). For example: Marta Kuzma (dean of an art school) and Edna Pahewa (head of department), but there are many other articles where I think significant roles would be suitable for infoboxes, (eg, Huhana Smith, head of an art school). — HTGS (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit to Anna Jermolaewa prompts me to ask whether the |awards= parameter should be limited to notable awards only? I note that {{infobox person}} limits |awards= to notable awards. "Notable" here might be determined by the award or the awarding organization having an article (not just a redirect) in mainspace. Of course, usual requirements for verification apply. This would not limit what is listed in the main text of the article, just the infobox. This is just a suggestion. What do others think? — Archer1234 (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, notable awards only. I appreciate that not all notable awards have articles though. -Lopifalko (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with using the word “notable”, only because most readers of the template will understand that to mean notable, and it gives the impression that the award must be bluelinked (or even temporarily redlinked). That is far too high a standard. I would change it to “significant awards” because the current wording, (Any awards the artist has won) is far too liberal. — HTGS (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "significant" - and there will be few of these. Infobox clutter should be avoided fiercely, and awards are not really important for artists. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A signature parameter needs to be included in the infobox which can be useful to painters' articles. Michelangelo being one example where the Infobox person is used for lack of the signature option with this template. Kj1595 (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]