This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
My name is Keodrah and I am wanting to write about Neo-gothism and post goth culture. I wanted to bring to your attention a movement that is happening in Denver Colorado with a figure named Dimitri Spanoa. His writings are rather progressive talking about the future of musical generas...I feel like he would be a great subject to cover in Neo-Gothism because he falls along the lines of Tim Burton and C.S. Lewis and the Chronicles of Narnia. He has also created a few bands with a dark fantasy model that introduces the bands as fiction, but release real world products. It is very exciting because they are now working on a music video and plan to have a film company. All of this falls under the writings of Dimiti-The Blacklight Chronicles. Would you be interested in helping me write an article- that his works are enjoyed by more people? Also by drawing inspiration from this subject, I have written an article called 'Post Goth and the evolution of subcultures'. This article will be published in Dark Culture Magazine in a few days. Thank you so much! I enjoyed reading this article.
here is a link to one of his sites http://www.myspace.com/darkmoth -Dimitri is also a graphic illustrator.
-Keodrah
Han Hoogerbrugge
I'm not sure I understand the reason behind your recent editing of Han Hoogerbrugge?
Why did you remove him from the catagories of Dutch people, Dutch artists and Cartoonists? I don't really see what the point was but before I revert your edits I thought I should ask why you did it.
oops forgot to ad my sig, i'll ad it now--Jimmyjrg 11:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The remaining categories are sub-categories of those removed, and generally having both a sub-category and the category above it in the category structure is considered redundant. Happy editing! >>sparkit|TALK<< 13:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Guernica
You added {{wikify}} to Guernica (painting). Doesn't look unwikified to me. What's the problem? - Jmabel | Talk 05:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Sibahi added the wikify tag last week. It looks plenty wikified to me. >>sparkit|TALK<< 05:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
& other things
P.S. I see you are here in the Emerald City, too!
Yes. But I don't think we've met. You haven't been at any of the meetups, have you? (I live in Wedgwood and currently am working downtown.) - Jmabel | Talk 05:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
We've not met. I haven't been to a meetup, but I'll keep an eye out for the next one. I live near Northgate and tomorrow I finish a contract job downtown. >>sparkit|TALK<< 05:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I see you work on a lot on art topics. Do I have any hope of recruiting you to flesh out the article on Jacob Lawrence and maybe even start one on Gwendolyn Knight? They've long been on my list, but I've never gotten to them. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It might be awhile, but I'll see what I can do. >>sparkit|TALK<< 00:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Saatchi Gallery
Hi, I wonder if you can help out. I have posted extra information on the Saatchi Gallery and it's been deleted 6 times by two new users whose only contributions have been on the gallery. They remove valid information about the history of the gallery, and seem to want to make it an announcement board for current gallery activities! Tyrenius 23:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tyrenius! I'll look it over and see what's happening. >>sparkit|TALK<< 03:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for input on Saatchi Gallery Talk page, and helping to defuse things.
Hi. I thought I'd reply to your offer to help with the Caravaggio cites here rather than oin the Caravaggio page, just in case you never go look there :). I've now added citations for almost all the direct quotes - a few are still blank, and if I can't find the sources I'll simply edit round them somehow. Apart from that, you could just look through the article and mark anything you feel needs a citation - just add [1] or something, with a matching blank in the Footnotes section. Then I can come back and try to find a good reference. I have Lambert (contains lots of secondary quotes that I haven't found elsewhere), Robb (use with caution but very readable and actually quite a lot of scholarship behind him), Puglisi (scholarly but slightly outdated), Langdon (same as for Puglisi), and Gash (pretty damn good). Should be able to find something from that lot. Plus I guess I could always go visit a library :). PiCo 12:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to do that. I suppose I could go to the library, too. ;>) >>sparkit|TALK<< 18:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi again! Here's what I added (wikipedia doesn't make this easy, eh?)
note|Minniti - something general about relationship with Minniti
note|Cardsharps - new theme, attracting attention of Francesco Maria Del Monte, popularity
note|homoerotic - The opinion that his images are homoerotic. (or is it in the eyes of the 21st century viewer?)
note|vulgar - citation of perception of vulgarity, as well as appreciation
note|Ceccho - something general about Ceccho
note|Syracuse_to_Messina_to_Polermo - citiation about the trip
note|bizarre_behavior - attribution
note|Naples - persued by enemies, on to Naples
note|David_to_Borghese - giving David painting to Borghese
note|death_uncertainties - stories of his death
note|models - the prostitues - maybe Minniti and Checcho could go here, too
note|himself_as_model - who first says he used himself for a model
At last I finished the footnotes to Caravaggio. I don't know if it's what you had in mind, but the footnotes now must be the longest for any article on Wikipedia! My problem is I could go on writing forever. Just have to force myself to stop. Any comments? PiCo 13:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, PiCo. I don't know that it has a record number of footnotes but it's up there. ;) And they certainly cover enough of the article to ensure "credibility." I'll proofread it again. Would you like to submit it again for a featured article? Again, thanks for writing so much about an artist I so enjoy. >>sparkit|TALK<< 05:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately I'll be out of touch for the next two months. I'd like it to go to FA, but I think a peer review might be a good first step. Would youlike to handle that? PiCo 05:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:
If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.
Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412T 02:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:ENcleanup.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam(T/C) 14:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:ENdelete.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam(T/C) 14:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:ENednotice.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam(T/C) 14:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Sparkit From A Wheaty Wikinewbie
I hope it's okay that I'm communicating with you this way Sparkit. I spent a little time looking at your contributions and subpages. I'm impressed! I was wondering, if I have some quick questions for you as I learn my way around wikiland (particularly with templates which I haven't used yet) would it be alright if I ask them here? I completely understand if you'd rather I not ask them here though - just say the word. All this wiki stuff has been pretty exciting to learn over the last 2 days. And thanks again for your response on the WWR article (which I resonded to). Oh, one more thing since you're the only person I know on Wikipedia ... if I do something stupid or non-wikilike, please let me know. Thanks! Jimkloss 14:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
LOL! Of course it's OK. Thanks for the compliment. I've learned a lot about editing and writing here, and it's been like a self-taught course in art history for me. As well as fascinating observation of people interaction in internet interfaces.
Ask anything you'd like to here, Jim, or on the WWRwiki. I'll likely be more candid on WWRwiki.
Templates are easy. Just enclose them in {{}}. I just learned the other day about WP:SUBST templates.
You are learning wikis quite rapidly. I'm not going to follow you around and read your edits, but if you step into some muck give me a shout. >>sparkit|TALK<< 17:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Barnstar time
I award you with the Tireless Contributor Barnstar for all your work improving and categorising art related subjects - Solipsist 07:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
For oh so long now, I've noticed you actively running around categorising art related articles, fixing them up, adding pictures where possible, removing them when they are inappropriate or copyvios, and generally improving Wikipedia's coverage of the arts. That seems worth a Tireless Contributor Barnstar to me. Thanks for all your efforts. -- Solipsist 00:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks, Solipsist! I'm taking everything I've learned here and using it with a new wiki, Whole Wheat Radio. You'll find me there with the same name as here, and if you like folk music, blues, and the like, tune-in to the stream. Which means I won't be doing much wikipedia for awhile, but I'm having a ball with the WWR wiki! >>sparkit|TALK<< 15:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Great work!
Thanks for working on the art articles, especially cleaning up my work! For great justice. 16:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Bakatcha! Thanks for your work on the articles. -->>sparkit|TALK<< 04:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Astronaut
re the Fallen Astronaut article (which I substantially rewrote today), I was wondering - why did you put it in the category of "Outdoor sculpture in the United States" ? The Moon isn't in the United States. DS 04:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I did not read the article carefully enough. Thanks for catching that. -->>sparkit|TALK<< 04:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:AlfredJarry.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
I'm considering moving the content within "Wavicles" to a new article "Wavicle", and then creating a redirect from the old to the new. I can then also include other references to the term "wavicle" on the new page. I think it is better to have one page containing all of the different references, rather than having two pages which can make things confusing. Feedback is requested on this proposed action on an existing discussion topic on the Talk:Wavicles page. (Any reply posted here will not be reviewed by me.) --Amit 17:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I am sending this out to wikiart folks everywhere,
so please don't feel picked on. Here's my thing. I've been watching list of sculptors recently and have been weeding out the entries in red on the theory that this is an index of sculptors in wikipedia. However i have been reluctant to remove artists that I know or discover to be real, wikipedia worthy people, so am trying to decide if i should just do a stub - maybe a lot of stubs - of these folks or leave them on the list [I HATE lists with too much red - check out the List of Frank Lloyd Wright works for example.
For example, i checked out one, François-Joseph Duret (1804 - 1865) and discovered that there are at least two sculptors with that name, (1732 - 1816) and (1804 - 1865)- this one is the son - and both probably could comfortably be in wikipedia. I did have a rather bad moment recently when someone DELETED my article on Connor Barrett about an hour [maybe less] after I first posted it, on the theory that he was not wikiworthy [or something] and a lot of these fairly remote (in time and place from me) artists are a lot more obscure than Barrett. So, i would like to know that i have the support of the wikipedia art history community before doing this. Drop me a line, if you wish to sit down and be counted. Life is good, Carptrash 04:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. although i do mostly American art i have contributed to lots on non-American articles including Aleijadinho, Ásmundur Sveinsson, Einar Jonsson, Gunnfrídur Jónsdóttir, Henry Moore, Ivan Meštrović, Ørnulf Bast, Rayner Hoff, and probably some others. I say this because most of the stubs I'm proposing would be Europeans.
Can you please place a warning on the talk page for 208.108.138.93? This is a persistent vandal, who just returned from a 24 hour block, and received another level 3 warning. One more warning, and he will be blocked again. Thanks. ---Charles 23:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Printmaking Categorization
Hi, Have you seen the discussion on this at [[2]] ? Not many have I suppose; your views would be very welcome. Cheers Johnbod 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi John!
What you've proposed sounds fine to me. thanks for taking it on. I read through some of the discussion. The etchers and engravers categories could easily be added to the printmakers category - it's either an oversight that they are not, or someone has removed them from it (seems to me they were subcats of printmaking at one time).
I guess I didn't read that "Obverse and reverse" article well enough when I categorized it. A "Visual arts terms" category would be useful, there are articles spread all over that would fit into it.
Hi Sparkit. Definitely liked your improvements to the How to Help section. I've been working on a restructuring of the same area in my sandbox and was wondering if you thought I was heading a good direction or not. It's clearly a work in progress and I'd like to incorporate the type of broad headings that you introduced. I just want to know if it's worth continued effort or not. Thanks. Planetneutral 17:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Planetneutral! I like what you're doing with the "how to help" thing in your sandbox! This morning I started out updating this, Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style, but got distracted by the "how to help" section of the visual arts project page and decided to clean it up. I think what you're doing and what I've done could easily be combined, and I encourage you to go for it on the project page. What do you think about a little template for editors with links to the help/howto articles relevant to editing visual arts pages? Something to put on one's user page or sandbox? >>sparkit|TALK<< 17:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the positive feedback. I agree that combining the approaches is very much possible. I think the template you mentioned has potential. My concern is that we haven't really developed the underlying project-specific resources that would be great to include (the Art Manual of Style is a perfect example). That said, I'm all for promoting this project and enabling participation in whatever way possible. Planetneutral 18:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point! :) I may revisit that art manual of style some more. Most all the style information is scattered about in other help/howto articles, and I think pointers to them might be the way to go. >>sparkit|TALK<< 18:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Mind taking a look at the attempted merger, before I move it to the live page? Cheers. Planetneutral 19:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Oooooooo! I like where this is going! Is it OK with you if I edit in your sandbox? Many thanks! >>sparkit|TALK<< 19:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. I appreciate the enthusiasm. Planetneutral 19:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I added a link for the portal's "did you know" section, and made some minor edits. Go for it, my friend! >>sparkit|TALK<< 19:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for your help! Now I need to think about what to do with that larger projects section. Just doesn't do it for me as is. Any thoughts? Planetneutral 20:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
You betcha, thank you!
Probably "Sub-projects" would be a more descriptive title. The categorizing thing has been a scattered effort, and seems to working OK at the moment. Moving images to commons was just a fleeting idea I had one day. I'd much rather see all the artists whose work is on commons with the commons link on their pages - a monumental task.
Anyhow, at the moment I'm thinking about chunking things down into sub-projects like:
Manual of style
Templatizing
Categories - if it's still appropriate
Portal maintenance
Open tasks maintenance
that sort of thing. Though, only manual of style and templatizing seem viable at the moment, the others are just examples of could-be.
Hi, I have been trying to clear out this cluttered category, in particular moving stuff to "Christian iconography". Ithink there should be a new sub-cat called something like "Christian art in modern media" for the likes of the Flannelgraph or Minnesota Cuke and the Search for Samson's Hairbrush. I think there might be resistance though. Any thoughts?
Cheers Johnbod 22:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Seeing how Christian art is a giagantic field some sort of breakdown is categories seems needed. I like the idea of an iconography category. As to the modern stuff like flannelgraph and Minnesota Cuke... hmmmmmm... The Cuke seems like it belongs in a "Christian films" category (or "Children's Christian films" - there's probably a gazillion of them). Flannelgraph is a medium, in the sense of communication. But in any case, "Christian art in modern media", or "Modern Christian art", or anything along those lines. In what manner do you expect resistance?
After not having done much categorizing in almost a year, today I'm scratching my head about having countries/nationalities art articles in two different categories -- Arts by country and Art by nationality. I would expect they'd all be in one or the other. It's almost like they started to move from nationalities to country then stopped about half-way through. (I remember some discussions about it long ago.) [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 23:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replied on mine- cheers Johnbod 01:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Western art
"Western art" is an extremely broad catch - any category of that name should be composed almost entirely of sub-categories. For example I see you are adding very specific articles such as Ottonian art, which is already a sub-cat of Medieval art, which should then be a sub-cat of western art. -- Stbalbach 05:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. I'm work my way to that. Thanks for keeping an eye on things! [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 05:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I see where you are going, but at the moment the cat is a sub of "Western culture" & "art by region" & includes various musical sub-cats (Groupe des Six, 2nd viennese school, neoclassicism) plus general ones like "Enlightenment". Might it not be better to have a cat just for the Visual arts?
Also, there is a bit of a categorisation rumpus on at [[3]] on illuminated manuscripts - any input welcome. Cheers Johnbod 13:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - that made me laugh! Do you know where the wiki-gizmo for showing trees/hierarchies lives, or where there's an example I can copy? Johnbod 16:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
:) No, I don't know where that is at. I've seen it, but I was looking for it yesterday and didn't find it. [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 17:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
:) No, I don't know where that is at. I've seen it, but I was looking for it yesterday and didn't find it. Let me know if you do. [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 17:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I found a complicated but smart looking one at Medici - too complicated for me! Johnbod 17:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The one I was thinking of was Category Tree browser at the Toolserver; javascript category browser, but it's been rolled into wikipedia. For discussion, I just do something simple like this...
Hi Sparkit. I saw that you shrunk the image on the WPVA template. It's awfully small. Makes ir pretty difficult to even tell what it is. Might we meet somewhere in the middle?
If we're going to shrink the image, I'd suggest we also shrink the text size, so they are in better balance. This would also serve the purpose of making the template smaller, which I imagine was at least part of your intention by shrinking the image.
So glad to see someone interested in the template! Cheers. Planetneutral 15:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep, my intent was to reduce the vertical size. The image definitely doesn't have enough contrast at that small size. A little bigger would work better for recognizing that image. When I did it I started wondering if we had another more iconic image we could use for that. Maybe the same one as the Visual arts portal? Though that's so painting oriented, and visual arts isn't just about painting. [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 18:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
That's funny, 'cause just last night I was thinking of how much I disliked the image on the Visual arts portal and was thinking of changing it to the sunflowers. I'm certainly open to change on both fronts. Planetneutral 18:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we could discuss on the portal or project page? The palette icon doesn't work very well for me either. How's about an image of an eyeball? Artfully done, of course. It would lend an implication of "visual". [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 19:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
AMA case on Classicjupiter2/Surrealism
Hi Sparkit, did you know you've been listed as a party to this case?
I'm listed too, but I haven't been involved in this situation other than a few comments recently. Do you understand what's happening on the Surrealism page? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Akhilleus! I did know I was named in that, but I don't know what being a party in such a case means, or what participation is expected or available to me. I do understand what's happening on the Surrealism page. Thanks! [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 18:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Sparkit, I don't understand what's happening on the Surrealism page--by which I mean, there seems to be a long-running dispute here, but I don't really understand what it's about, or what the various parties actually want. It doesn't seem to be just about adding a link to an external website...anyway, if you understand what's happening, could you explain it to me? Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I did misunderstand. I'll compose a brief recap of my understanding of the conflicts. Hopefully by this evening. [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 18:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
My read on the conflicts on Surrealism related pages centers on several core questions:
What is "real" Surrealism? To Andre Breton and the original surrealists, surrealism was a change in thought processes, priorities and the like in an effort to revolutionize society. There's a political aspect to what at first blush is a visual arts or literature movement. It's my understanding that the original movement wasn't about creating works, but changing society and the works were a side effect, an artefact. Thus, part of what we're dealing with here is the differences in the definition of the term "surrealism" – originally surrealism was a process (and still is to many people) not the product, but the product has become known as surrealism. That's why there's a phrase in the article, " In more mundane terms, the word "surreal" is often used colloquially to describe unexpected juxtapositions or use of non-sequiturs in art or dialogue."
Closely parallel to "what is 'real' surrealism" contentions is who is or isn't a "real" surrealist. Some contend that surrealists are only those who adhere to the original tenets. To confuse the matter, much visionary art and the like looks very similar to the work of the original surrealists, and thus the visionary art is called surrealism. There's some clamoring of individuals and groups to be recognized as surrealists.
What's happened with Surrealism since Breton's death? Some say the movement died with him. Yet other groups, besides the original Paris-based group have formed.
So, inclusion of links, mention of various individuals, works and the like, IMO, are reflections of the contentions above. Disruptive tactics and ad hominem arguments make it difficult to sort out the problems.
Sparkit, thanks, that's very helpful. But this isn't an abstract thing for some of these editors, right? Some of them believe that they are real surrealists and that other editors aren't real surrealists. And in the process, it seems like what the article says about surrealism has strayed from a conventional art historical understanding of surrealism. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, it is very real to the participants.
The main article (Surrealism) as it stands now basically just covers the philosophy/thought aspect. At one time it contained the history and art aspects, too. But in Oct. 2006 HappyCamper branched the history section (History of surrealism) into a separate article and Surreal-one broke the art part (Surrealism in the arts) into another article.
After having left the scene for a number of months, and coming back and finding that an art article had been created, but material duplicated in the main article, I deleted the art stuff from the main article as a way to avoid maintaining the info on both pages.
I've been hoping that once the smoke clears we can join the main, history and art articles back into one. Then proceed to present the info in NPOV fashion by presenting the multiple sides of the story. [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 01:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The VA portal
Thanks for the kind words and encouragement! I've been looking at the featured portals and the comments that were made during their candidacies (that is, who succeeded and why). I kept coming across the rotating content issue and mentions of the randomizer, so I thought it sounded perfect for the anemic level of maintenance that our portal currently suffers through. I'm definitely thinking of shooting for featured portal and have appreciated your interest and involvement. Onward and upward... Planetneutral 23:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing?
No problems talking about it here or the article talk page. My main interest in editing the article came through Pop art and a general interest in keeping things balanced. I may or may not be doing that (it's hard to see these things sometimes when you're caught up in it all), but my main concern was a specific agenda being bullied through without any balanced sources or discussion. I have no problem with new ideas being introduced into art history, nor do I have problems with any rethinking of the "canon". On the contrary, I believe that is crucial and should be welcomed. However, I'm not convinced that is what's happening here. When I first started on wiki in the fall of '06, I noticed an edit war on this article, attempted a few reverts, was shouted down and basically gave up. Since then it seems to have remained dormant and I was hoping to fix things up, but the other editor Ottex was quick to jump in with reverts and comments which were insulting. I realize it's always best to step away from edit wars and mudslinging--I even posted a message indicating my desire to do so and focus on the editing. Aside from my response today, I've done that, mainly just reverting the reverts. If it's necessary to the process, I don't mind backing off, but not to leave it to Ottex to push through his agenda which is clearly something personal. But if other editors such as yourself are going to be working on it, I can at least be assured there's actually going to be a proper edit.
I'm not sure where you are in the world, but here it's 11:38 so I'm off to bed, and I may not respond to anything for a while. Thanks for the note (and the chance to explain my edits). Freshacconci 04:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Keeping things balanced, and understandable is my concern, too. Frankly, I never figured you were opposed to presenting the controversy, only in the way it was presented. The mudslinging and edit warring just makes it difficult to do so. Maybe the RFC will help us all make a great article of it.
I'm in Seattle, where it's not quite time to hit the pillows yet. Sweet dreams! --sparkitTALK 05:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
D'oh!
Gosh, I would have sworn that I'd gone through and changed all four rotating sections footers to match. Must have just previewed and forgot to save. I do that WAY too often. Thanks for cleaning up my messes. Planetneutral 14:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm certain that you did! I changed a bit of the code and decided to match the sections. :) Again, I love what you've done with this portal - a few more tweaks and some more rotating content and it'll be featured... no doubt. The quotation section - well, I'm not fond of yet another box within all the boxes and the small type. Not a big deal, but I'm playing with some ideas here, User:Sparkit/sandbox/templates. Not what I'm after yet but maybe more play on it later.
Keep this up and you'll get hit with some barnstars! --sparkitTALK 15:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, OK, I guess I'm not quite as crazy as I'd thought. Good to know. I'm definitely open to different displays for the selected quotation, so I'll keep an eye on your sandbox page. Nice to have someone with an artistic eye involved! Planetneutral 15:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, this templating stuff is certainly crazy-making! I boldly went ahead an implemented my quote layout idea, and added a Duchamp quote. Thanks! --sparkitTALK 16:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Strangely, running IE7 on Vista, the More selected quotations link is white and therefore invisible on the main portal page. Doesn't happen on Firefox. Wonder why that would be? Can't really dig into it now, but I'll look tonight. Planetneutral 18:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I may have fixed that by adding style="background-color:transparent;". The text had a white background on Firefox/Mac, but the text itself was blue/purple, but now it's the same as the background. --sparkitTALK 18:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, it didn't fix it. Planetneutral 18:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Display problem
Something about the changes made today has resulted in a break of the portal's display in IE6, such that the right column is pushed down below the end of the left column. It was working as of the end of last night. Too much was done today beyond my limited understanding to have any hope of fixing it, so I'm hoping you can. Cheers, Planetneutral 02:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Ugh. I'll roll 'em back and let you know the specific problems in firefox/mac. the code will be more familiar to you that way. I don't have Windoze to look at the probs. --sparkitTALK 02:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I tried some 'rolling back' in an isolated fashion, but it may be that all three sections now share some attribute that's flummoxing the whole deal. I check IE every once in a while for exactly this reason. Hope it solves the issue.
I'm working on some of the other suggested tweaks. While I hesitate to sacrifice originality and style for the sake of consistency (and really recoil at the use of quote in place of quotation), I'm pretty sure we'll lose those fights at the FPC level anyway. And really, the goal is to draw attention to visual arts on Wikipedia, so I want that FP status badly. Major increase in the number of eyes on the portal. Planetneutral 02:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I rolled them back to last night. It'll be easier that way I think. As far as the FPC thing goes, how's about submitting it the way you, or we, like it, and if a case can't be made for the originality, then change it? --sparkitTALK 02:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Dang, that didn't fix the issue. I must be delusional. I'm gonna play around a bit and see if I come up with the problem. Probably will be able to put your edits back in. Sorry to send you on that goose chase. Re: FPC, yeah, could do that. Some of the same folks will be voting though, so you might just be stalling the inevitable. Some compromise will be necessary. Planetneutral 03:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I got it!!!!!!!! Something about moving the Did you know section into the right column (or moving the things you can do to the bottom) broke it. Switch 'em back and presto. Kind of a bummer as I liked it better the other way, but I'd rather have it working. Planetneutral 04:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow! that's really weird, but I've seen bugs like this before. I'm suspicious of the div tags and floating... seems I recall reading that IE doesn't handle them the same as mozilla.
I've been thinking about visual art content... I just don't remember coming across very many articles that are "GA" status. And I glanced at the bureaucracy surrounding that today. Ugh! --sparkitTALK 04:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yup, having the same problem. Many of the GA articles are unimpressive. Bios are no problem.
I added a suggestion area for each of the rotating sections. I'm working on DYK right now. Of course, I should be heading off to bed... Planetneutral 04:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way that you can introduce a line of white space between the bottom of the {{{text}}} and the footer material in the rotating sections? I can't figure it out and my brain is fading fast~ Thanks for the help. Planetneutral 05:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see a little more white space at the above the items, like right about the first line, but I won't fiddle with that now. --sparkitTALK 05:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
That might be too far in the opposite direction ('cause I'm not at all picky). Maybe a single break tag is enough? Planetneutral 05:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
OK. Let's try one. :) I made the change. --sparkitTALK 05:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It's strange how two is too much, but one doesn't really seem to do anything at all. The space created also seems to be dependent on where the text ends. How are other portals solving this issue? We may as well look since it's been suggested in peer review and will just come up again in FPC. Planetneutral 11:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Glancing at a couple other portals, they're not addressing the problem. I think a "line-height:1em" in styles for those lines will do the trick. If 1 em is too much, we could try .75em. I made the change on most of the templates and the intro.
I also moved the portal icon to the right side to relieve the clutter in the upper left corner.
It's true that a number of them aren't addressing it. Here's some that seem to: Portal:Dogs, Portal:Electronics and Portal:Literature. I'm not seeing any difference on the basis of that line height attribute in Firefox or IE.
I'm OK with moving the picture, although it does make it pretty rigid and boxy on the left. Seems to work on the whole. Planetneutral 14:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The dog portal is using a common box footer template, placed on the portal main page. I tried it with visual arts just now and it messed up he page layout. Didn't save it. --sparkitTALK 14:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure? That's not what I'm seeing for the random components (which is where the issue is, right?). It looks like they are using the layout that I started with.
Is there a compelling reason not to just use that? Planetneutral 15:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that's what it looks like now that I look closer that box-footer is included in the rotating template. The most compelling reason not to use that is that "...archive" and "...read more" links using the div tags will overlap tall images on the archive pages. --sparkitTALK 15:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, the {{tl:Random portal component}} uses {{tl:Portal:box-footer}} which is not adjustable by us unless we want to change all the wikiportals that use it. Which explains why we see a difference in the components we're using that don't use the random thing (DYK). Dunno where to go on this from here. --sparkitTALK 15:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I had to do some pretty drastic things, but I have everything working, including eliminating the white quotations link in IE7. Did not like having to 'undo' so much tweaking, but things are about as they should be now across browsers. In an ideal world, getting rid of the white space under the footer links would be desirable, but I really don't want to play and have to do this all again, as it's been a real energy drain/distraction from focusing on the content of the page. So I recommend we be pretty cautious (not dormant, just careful) from here as far as box format tweaking is concerned. Planetneutral 18:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. The problem with the "more" links overlapping some of the images in the article and bio archives has returned. If you're not seeing it in firefox/win, it must be a firefox/mac-specific problem.
The whole exercise has been a drain/distraction to me as well, but I must say that I know alot more now about the arcane bits of portal code. --sparkitTALK 19:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I found one example of what you were talking about with the archive display of Selected Article 1. I solved the issue on my end by adding enough text to push the More link below the image. See if it worked for you. Incidentally, I watch your talk page, so you can feel free to only respond here. I'll see it. Planetneutral 22:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I made some more changes that I think complete the responses to peer review, except for the number of articles/quotes, which I'll keep working on. I've, at least for the moment, reverted to caps on the main page. I hate to (again) undermine positive contributions that you made and I didn't do it lightly, but I also don't really think it's worth taking an iconoclastic stand about style at this point. I want to make the transition to FP as smooth as possible. Arguing endlessly about capitalization, which, in looking at previous CFPs, is inevitable, just sounds like another energy drain waiting to happen.
For displaying boundless creativity in the improvement of the Visual arts portal. Planetneutraltalk I'm very excited about moving to formal candidacy and want to thank you so much for your efforts toward that end. I believe you've earned a cookie. :-) Planetneutral 01:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Oooooooo! Thanks for the cookie! Yum.
But you! I think you need a barnstar for driving the whole project!
I'm sorry to see that label/title/header style go. Something to think about later, perhaps. --sparkitTALK 01:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Too kind, too kind. I can certainly see us revisiting stylistic innovation later on down the line. Cheers! Planetneutral 01:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Portal maintenance
Hey, thanks for chiming in on the portal candidacy. You should know that I listed you as one of the portal maintainers on Wikipedia:Portal/Directory. I don't think the gig pays, so if you don't want to be listed there, feel free to remove your name. Planetneutral 06:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
You betcha, you're welcome! Another non-paying gig? :) cool! --sparkitTALK 14:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
JamesHAndrews
Hi Sparkit, thanks for categorizing my article! (I wrote only one -- the one on Northwest Coast Art.) I noticed today that someone has done some kind of erroneous edit to it... actually it looks like some kind of keyboard/mouse accident rather than a genuine attempt to edit it (see the sections on Cultural Appropriateness and the References).
Newbie alert -- sorry if these questions are naive. Is it possible to revert the article? If so, do you have the power/ability to revert it? ElaraGirl was the one that did the most improvements to it (adding references and pictures, for instance) but she seems to have withdrawn from Wikipedia. I would really appreciate it if you could do it or tell me how to do it.
By the way, I'm a big fan of Marcel Duchamp and I will be checking out your pages on him.
I reverted it, which is really quite easy to do. See Help:Reverting. Newbie questions are cool, it means someone wants to learn. :)
I enjoyed reading the article, and was delighted to see it here on wikipedia... being a native northwesterner... well, I grew up here, of European ancestry.
Let me know what you think of the Duchamp article. I've been picking away at it for a very long time, and I think it's still very choppy. Tompkins biography about him is wonderful. I highly recommend it.
...to know that an editor reversed your page move of Constantin_Brâncuşi without providing a counter-logic for doing so. Planetneutraltalk 19:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I saw it when it happened and chose not to fight that battle. :) The edit summary of the move, to the spelling that no one will search for, said "not a policy". As it turns out the page I though was policy was a proposed-but-failed policy and no one had marked it as such (it's now marked). However, it confuses me in light of all the other naming convention pages which prescribe "use English." I guess all the libraries and museums in the English speaking world have been spelling it wrong for decades. It's confusing other folks, too. See the bottom of Talk: Constantin_Brâncuşi. --sparkitTALK 00:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Chinese art
Neat elephant. Interesting. Just wanted to drop by and thank you for your help with the Southern School stuff. Meanwhile, if you're interested, I've created Category:Lacquerware and Ryukyuan lacquerware with a number of red links just waiting to be filled. If that's not your thing, that's fine. No pressure, of course. Thanks again. Cheers. LordAmeth 21:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You're most welcome! I don't know much about Eastern art, so I'm learning as I go. :) I made a stub for lacquerware and will add to it as I find info, time and interest permitting. Did all the redirects, too, like laquerware. (That elephant just tickles my fancy.) --sparkitTALK 21:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Avoiding any edit war
I need your help and I really don't know who else to talk to. Its about the Surrealism article. I am trying to find notable reference and source material on these current surrealist groups, and all I am getting is blogs. I really suggest that the article sticks to historical fact.Worldeater 17:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't have info on whether any particular contemporary group is notable or non-notable. What is notable is that they exist almost 40 years after Breton's death. --sparkitTALK 19:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Kinetic
I'm looking it up right now in a book I have. A lot of interesting stuff. It's all surprisingly interrelated. Yes, Op art is said to simulate movement, or at least to create the illusion of movement. Interestingly, the term Op art was coined by a Kinetic artist, George Rickey! It is said that the first Kinetic sculpture was Marcel Duchamp's Bicycle Wheel of 1913. Anyway, Op art and Kinetic art (or sculpture) are separate things. I don't see any indication of any overlap. Bus stop 23:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Neat! I'd read that about Bicycle but hadn't added to any of the articles. I, too, think of only the actual moving stuff as kinetic, but because op art is sometimes referred to as kinetic some mention is warranted, but like I said on the kinetic art talk page, dunno if a whole section is needed. --sparkitTALK 12:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out with the categories in the Painting article. If you have any info or more details that might help me when I deal with these sections, I'd love to hear of them. Artypants 07:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
