Talk:Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the arts and cultural heritage

Discussion
We have data on public library system closures in the following countries: American Samoa, the Aland Islands, Algeria, Austria, Bangladesh, Croatia, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guernsey, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Luxembourg, Malaysia, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda and the United Kingdom.

We know that national libraries are closed to the public in: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Colombia, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, the Holy See, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, the Maldives, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Morocco, Namibia, the Netherlands, New Caledonia, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Panama, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, the Republic of Korea, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Uruguay, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Dswyber (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Stephen Wyber
 * Who is 'we' and do you have the reference for this list? Rather than stating the same thing again and again for each country in a bullet point list, it would be worthwhile to simply state it at the top of the 'closures' section that the national library/public libraries are closed in x number of countries. That would be less repetitious. Wittylama 22:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey the last comment was made by Stephen Wyber. When he says we I guess he means IFLA. --Scann (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see this text comes from here: https://www.ifla.org/covid-19-and-libraries#closures on the IFLA website. I've now used that as a reference to the fact that 'many' libraries have closed near to top of the article's 'closure' section. I don't want to recreate a "mere" list of all libraries which have closed, but there might be a way to utilise this excellent IFLA page as a source elswehere in the text - as it's more than just a list but has lots of other content... Wittylama 16:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Flags
The use of flags is generally disliked by Wikipedia editors. This article is readily becoming a list by country, and should be rewritten as prose. The By sector part is much better. Everything should be consolidated into the By sector section, since just about every country reads the same; "foo was closed/postponed ...". Abductive (reasoning) 01:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, ,
 * You're right that the use of lots of icons (notably of flags) is generally frowned upon in article prose. I am aware of Manual of Style:Flags#Appropriate use (and also the 'inapropriate use' section further down that page), and I think we have some leeway here. That is on the basis that: "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." Especially in the "Impacts" subsections (copyright, budgets/staffing, and financial stimulus packages) these things are highly nationally specific. In fact, the global nature of the pandemic - which doesn't care about national borders - makes the fact that our responses are dictated at the level of sovereign states all the more important historically.
 * Nonetheless, I think you're right that this article is already pushing the boundaries of acceptable leeway for over-use of flags. I think I can easily remove them from the bulletpoint list at the beginning of the #Adaptations subheading. Also I am increasingly thinking that the whole #Closures section needs to be reformatted to be more prose-based rather than nationally-based. The article List of public venues and institutions closed during the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is probably the best place for country-specific lists of closures. But we still need a way to structure the section so that it is useful to the reader. Perhaps to write it in prose but chronologically, or geographically by continent would be more useful? I do not wish to "merely" repeat the fact that x country closed all public venues on y date" over and over again. The #Closures section needs to focus on things where the Arts/Culture sector is unique in some manner. The China, France, and Netherlands segments (as they are currently written) are good examples of what DOES deserve to be remarked upon in this article, while the Brazil section (as currently written) is a bad-example of a "mere list of closed glams".
 * I don't think that everything can be consolidated into by-sector subheadings. As mentioned - "closure", "financial stimulus", and "copyright" are highly specific to individual countries' laws and policies, and therefore they will probably always need to have a bullet point list of countries. I think in those types of cases the flag icons ARE useful. They would serve as visual aids, the ARE about national issues, and they do not contradict any of the Inappropriate use of flags guidelines.
 * Every day I am being sent (or finding) a dozen new suggestions for references and ideas to add to this article. So I might not get around to reformatting and 'prosifiying' the #Closures subheading immediately. But I'll work on it :-) Wittylama 14:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , great, thanks. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Page name
I originally created this article as "impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the arts and cultural heritage", because it was consistent with the naming structure of many other equivalent articles (film, sport, religion, aviation...) and the category itself: Category:Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (and nearly everything within it). In the last few hours however, User:Michael Hardy pagemoved it to "effect of...", while all the other things remain the same. Ultimately it doesnt matter too much because the grammar is equivalent and there is a redirect in place. Nonehtless, I would like the article title to be consistent with the rest of its category. Michael, could you describe why you pagemoved this article? Wittylama 09:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * After I moved this I realized that that "naming structure" exists. I would change all of them to "Effect of..." if I could do that right now at the touch of a button. I dislike seeing words get destroyed like this, but we also have death and taxes and injustice in the world. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , I don't personally mind whether they're all "impact of..." or "effect of..." (or indeed something else, like "effect upon..."), but I do believe that they should be consistent. Why did you move this article, but not any of the others? If you feel like you need to get a consensus for a standard naming structure, I suppose starting a thread on the talkpage of the main pandemic article would be the logical place. Otherwise, if you're not planning to rename the other articles/categories, can we move this one back to how it was (especially since ALL the inbound links are now pointing to a redirect, which is not ideal)?
 * [Also, I don't see the grammatical or semantic difference between 'impact' and 'effect' in this context, but clearly you do. Can you elaborate why you so strongly prefer 'effect'? I'm genuinely interested.] Wittylama 11:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * An impact is a violent collision. The word is used to suggest that it an effect is not merely a causal consequence, but a surprisingly and impressively shocking effect. But then it gets to be used promiscuously, until the ignorant think of it as merely a synonym of "effect", so the word that had existed is destroyed. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that User:MarkZusab has now moved this page back to "impact". Wittylama 15:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Performing Arts breakout
Several of the subsections in the "by sector" heading have their own dedicated articles - notably the "impact on... Cinema, TV, and music. I am now wondering whether there should be a breakout article for "performing arts".

The reason I say this is that, although the prose component of this subsection is not overly long, the table of theatre/opera/ballet/orchestra productions which are being streamed online in response to the pandemic... is going to get very long.

Have a look at the 'impact on the music industry' article to see a comparison/model for how I imagine the 'performing arts' section could be created as a standalone article.

Originally I had thought a table could be put in this article, and be at reasonable scale. That's when I was looking at the several long, but not impossibly long, lists created by journalists. Then, however, I was directed to a couple of crowdsourcing projects specifically for this purpose and realised the list is far longer: These two references are LONG lists.

IF we want try to make a reasonably comprehensive list of these streamed productions, I feel that deserves to be a breakout article with a separate table by genre of work (opera, ballet, theatre, orchestra...). OR, alternatively, we do not even try to make a comprehensive table, and merely list several examples of each genre, and point our readers to these externally curated reference lists. What do you think? (Ping especially User:Corachow, the person who has been working on this part of the article). Wittylama 17:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I will work on a page specific to performing arts. Thank you for the two lists, it surely will help a lot! Corachow (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Wow - That was a rapid response! Well done with Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the performing arts! Looking great already. p.s. I recommend you look at the paragraph that talks about Unionisation in the USA theatre sector - search for "Actors' Equity Association" in this article. You might wish to copy that across to your P.A. article too. Wittylama 11:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Suggested references

 * Coronavirus: How artists are depicting the lockdown - Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry user:Pigsonthewing, I can't load this program to geoblocking - even when I tried using my VPN. There's nothing on the landing page that describes what the potential footnote could be. No transcription of the episode script, for example. If you think it's worthwhile, can you add it yourself in the relevant location of the article? Wittylama 15:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Mis-paste, sorry; link fixed. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah that makes more sense - good article, good find . However, it leave me with a bit of a dilemma... That report details a wide variety of creations in the visual arts (sculpture, photography, drawing...) and indeed sets of new works. However, because of the breadth and volume of 'quick' content they're creating (sometimes to 'pass the time', sometimes to sell/donate), I don't think its a good idea to try and list every single one in the "New works#Visual art" subsection of the article. However, I feel there's a risk of me making an arbitrary line for what counts as "real art"! To take two examples from that article, I think this doesn't deserve to be listed in the 'new works', but that this does. I already wrote the scope of the list as not including academic works (e.g. medical journal articles) nor "amateur content creators" online content like memes. The easiest way to define what goes "in" would be whether it is going to be sold/commercially-published/auctioned/acquired by a gallery/etc but that does feel like a needlessly commercialised definition of "new creative works". What do you think I should do?
 * p.s. I fully expect this section of 'new creative works' will end up being broken off into its own list article eventually, but it'll still need a scoping-clarification that decides whether 'very notable artist who puts a ton of sketches on instagram', or 'previouly-unknown artists who gets a profile in the BBC for photographing empty streeets' should be included...
 * p.p.s. Of those new works mentioned in this article I have now included the Banksy, the Gormley, the Hirst, and also used the article as a reference for the fact that visual artists are adapting in-general by posting things on their own social media (equivalent to the pre-existing sentence about how performing artists are doing the same). Wittylama 18:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Amazon's £250,000 for bookshops fund stuns trade. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Wittylama 15:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Spike in sales of "The Plague" and other books or works of art
I am wondering if a section could be created to cover the spike in sales of Camus' The Plague, and that of other books or artworks. --CRau080 (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * content to that effect is already included. See the second paragraph of the subsection “Literature and publishing” which is all about how certain “classic” literature is selling strongly again, including Camus. Wittylama 23:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am sorry for not having checked this before starting this talk point. As a partial defence, I'd like to submit that the section title under which this is currently placed, Adaptations, may not make it clearly obvious that the material is found here, as some readers may make the same narrow association of this term with the meaning "adapted works of art" that I made myself. --CRau080 (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The three main divisions of the article are "closures" [by country], "adaptations" [by industry sector], and "impacts" [by topic area]. Can you suggest another succinct and clear alternative naming which would avoid the problem you describe (and not add confusion in another manner)? Wittylama 09:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest to change "Adaptations" to "Adaptations and consumer shifts", or something similar that reflects a balance between changes that occurred on the "supplier" as well as the "consumer" side (with both terms being understood in a broad sense). Perhaps the word "behaviour" could be added after "consumer" for clarity; as a non-ESL speaker,I am not too sure on this. --CRau080 (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I wonder.... would changing “adaptations” to simply “changes” work? This is broader in meaning, and can be ‘bad’ or ‘unintentional’ whereas “adaptations” implies both ‘good’ and ‘deliberate’. It also leaves open the interpretation of “who” is doing the changing - it could be either the supplier or consumer (to use your phasing). Wittylama 13:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The term “changes” is far-reaching but, given the wide gamut of applications that this is to cover here, probably just about the best crunchy-short solution that exists. I endorse this replacement. --CRau080 (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Wittylama 23:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic in popular culture
I moved most of the "New creative works" subsection of "Impact" over to COVID-19 pandemic in popular culture, where I think it's better suited. I invite anyone who's been editing this article to come over and help me with that one, too, since it's still pretty new. Tisnec (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The article is too long now
The article is now 80 kB, which means it should be shortened or split off per WP:SIZERULEs. Any suggestions as to how that can be accomplished? Love of Corey (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

UNESCO report on economic impact
I've added a reference to the UNESCO report "Cultural and creative industries in the face of COVID-19: an economic impact outlook" but it looks like there are lots more findings in that report that are highly relevant to this article if anyone wants to pick through it. The report has a CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO licence. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

National Trust pilot
Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)