Talk:Canadian art/Archive 1

After World War II
Recommend removing this content. It does not pertain to the temporal period under which it is currently listed. Aolivex (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Red Maple.jpg
The image Image:Red Maple.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --06:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

First image on article?
I was wondering if we could get some consensus on what image to use at the start of the article. I was thinking of a contemporary artist that plays with ideas of Canadian nationalism, maybe something like Jin-Me Yoon's [Group of Sixty-Seven] or maybe Brian Jungen's Prototype for New Understanding? --Ducio1234 (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Generally there should be an introduction, a textual lead, before there is a lead image. As for using a Fair use image in the lead, see the long debate on using FU images in leads at WPVA. I would say it would be safer to use a Group of Seven painting in the lead, something that is iconic and un-copyrighted. Nice work on this article, by the way.  Litho  derm  17:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't realized the lead paragraph was missing. I'll have a look into that discussion and see what's available without copyright. Cheers, --Ducio1234 (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary Canadian art
Please note the page Contemporary Canadian art now redirects to this article.14GTR (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Today's edit
The introduction mindlessly delved into a discussion about Canadian identity before bothering to touch upon the article's primary content, so I removed it. Need I go on? I think not. I suppose it could always be transferred to another subsection, but even then, what for? There is already an article devoted to Canadian identity. Why was that spiel added to and in turn prioritized in this article in the first place? I know we are supposed to assume good faith, but its inclusion came across as deliberately patronizing. 65.95.234.105 (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you don't go edit warring, that's for sure. If someone undoes your edit, you leave it and discuss it here. See WP:BRD.  freshacconci  talk to me  17:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You see, that's all fine and dandy, but you've yet to voice your reasoning for the reversion (which reintroduces subject matter unrelated to the topic at hand). Rather, you merely opted to repeat the point you made in the article's edit summary yesterday. 65.95.234.105 (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Since we're all volunteers, we can't comply with your personal timeline. I made a quick response but had other things to do. However, my answer is simple: I disagree. The subject matter is very much part of the topic (and there's plenty of sources about it). The topic is Canadian art and the issue of Canadian identity is very much central to that. Rather than removing that subject from the intro, it would be more appropriate to expand the subject in the body as it is a core idea in Canadian art.  freshacconci  talk to me  13:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)