Talk:Hans Makart

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hans Makart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040126234427/http://www.wienmuseum.at/dynamicPage.asp?MenuID=2138 to http://www.wienmuseum.at/dynamicPage.asp?MenuID=2138

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Bacchus and Ariadne
Wikimedia Commons has an image of the painting Bacchus and Ariadne. Should this page link to it? Maybe using place where the painting is named? Or maybe it should be in the gallery of paintings at the bottom?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Makart_hans_der_triumph_der_ariadne.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.92.98 (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * If you want to include the image, feel free to do so. Wikipedia is open source- so anyone can edit at any time. See MOS:IMAGES for general advice on how to do this.


 * However, you should be aware the the article already has many images of Makart's paintings - for many editors it is too much already. Somewhere in WP's complex and confusing set of guidelines or policies there is a statement to the effect that 'Wikipedia is not an image gallery' - which is what editors use to justify their decisions to delete portions of articles with a large number of images. "Large number" is not defined anywhere in Wikipedia, in relation to any of Wikipedia policies which is problematic for editors (for example, the good folk over at Wikipedia External Links Project interpret it to mean anything more than one, in relation to the external links at the end of articles). I can't find that statement about too any images in the policy statement MOS:IMAGES which means that it is probably a guideline rather than a firm policy. In my own case, I have had entire galleries of images deleted from several articles because an editor considered that there were too many images, or didn't like the images selected. Of course, you can challenge such decisions, but in my experience it is a total waste of time because no editor ever backs down from editing decisions that they have made, and if you challenge them too vigorously, or use evidence-based arguments rather than rely on policy interpretation, they tend to engage in various vindictive editing tactics.


 * Given that the painting is expressly mentioned in the article, it is a good idea to include that image, but you would have to delete one or more images to make way for it - because of the current crowding on the page. Some editors might object to the removal of an image they have added previously. For prolific artists, such as Makart, it is not realistic to include every work for which Commons has images. You might have noticed that the article has a logo explaining that Wiki Commons has media relating to Hans Makart. Clicking on this will allow users to access a category with works by the artist or about the artist. Ultimately it is your decision whether to add or not to add another image, but I would suggest that you ensure that the painting of interest, Bacchus and Ariadne, is included in Makart's category on Commons. If not, you can add it to the category, or ask someone at the Commons help desk to do it. If it is already there, then I probably wouldn't recommend adding another image to this article, unless you use it to replace a minor work that is displayed on the page. I would not recommend adding it to the gallery, which is already at two lines, so the addition of yet another image would take it to three lines - where it would surely draw the ire from the image-haters.


 * Personally, I am in totally favour of images - especially images of artworks, sculptures, buildings and complex diagrams or flowcharts. But sadly, there appears to be an entire brigade of editors who see images as far too low-brow or "unnecessary for an encyclopedic understanding" of the subject, and only too willing to hit that delete button. Good luck! BronHiggs (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)