Talk:Landscape painting

copyvio
The bulk of this article as of Jan. 8, 2006 is copied from http://www.rolandlee.com/articles81.html. Sparkit 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. Sparkit 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Landscape art vs. landscape photography
It seems clear to anyone reading this page that it deals with art, as in paintings, rather than with photography, as in photos. While it is correct to say that photography can require art in its successful execution, photography itself requires no artistic talent and no one would be convinced that common snapshots are anything like art. As a consequence,please place landscape photos under "Photography,landscape" and not on this page, which deals primarily with paintings and related hand-painted art. Jack Bethune 12:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"photography itself requires no artistic talent". Highly disputable. DB, 06.02.2007. (Cambridge).

This discussion has rather large parameters. Operating a camera does not require artistic talent, but of course, smearing paint randomly across a canvas doesn't require any, either. Photography makes it easy to make pictures; one could argue that a shot of my shoe, taken accidentally, is art. But at any rate, I don't think anyone would dispute that Ansel Adams was an artist. I do think that a discussion of landscape photography belongs in this section, with a link to "landscape photography."

Landscape photography has affected the way we look at landscape, the sights that we regard as "beautiful" or "interesting," and the sights that we deem worthy of preservation. Their photographs have impacted 20th Century landscape art.

In addition, a "dirty little secret" of landscape painters is that many no longer work outdoors. They paint pictures of their photographs--ideally, photographs they, themselves, have taken. Westernscribenew (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC).

"Earth" vs. "earth"?
As now written, this sentence appears in the accompanying article: "Traditionally, landscape art depicts the surface of the earth, but there are other sorts of landscapes, such as moonscapes, for example."

To justify his reverting Earth back to earth, as the term now stands, WP contributor MarylandArtLover makes this assertion: "When preceded by 'the', the word 'earth' should not be capitalized. Check any dictionary."

That “should not be capitalized” sounded very much like a rule, one that presumably could be backed up by some authoritative source. So, a number of dictionaries were consulted, both online and printed. The result is that no evidence of such a rule could be found. Instead, it quickly became apparent that dictionaries provide a variety of usage guidelines concerning the proper spelling and use of “Earth” vs. “earth.”

The majority of online dictionaries confirm that the term refers to the planet on which we live and is "often capitalized." For example: |Dictionary.com, |Merriam-Webster Online’’, and  |American Heritage Dictionary''  In all these definitions, no exception was apparent regarding the presence of “the” in guiding capitalization.

On the other hand, some dictionaries take a contrary position and say that the term “earth” is commonly left lowercase, even when listed among other capitalized planets.

The conclusion an online researcher might justifiably reach is that, according to a sampling of standard dictionaries, some English users capitalize the term while others do not.

More to the point, NO dictionary was found that makes any recommendation about lowercasing “earth” when preceded by the word “the.” Nor was any such distinction apparent in the wording of any dictionary text.

If this “rule” exists somewhere, it couldn't be found in just “any dictionary.”  Perhaps MarylandArtLover would be kind enough to provide some dictionary links supporting his claim that “When preceded by 'the', the word 'earth' should not be capitalized.”  :)  Jack Bethune 03:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I oversimplified when I said that the word 'the' was a simple disqualifier. But Wikipedia certainly agrees with me as to the commonest, most standard usage. Allow me to quote the Wikipedia article on earth.


 * After acknowledging that there is no hard and fast rule ("the name can be capitalized or spelled in lowercase interchangeably") the article nevertheless goes on to state what is usual:


 * Oxford Spelling recognizes the lowercase form as the most common, with the capitalized form as a variant of it. Another convention that is very common is to spell the name with a capital when occurring absolutely (e.g. Earth's atmosphere) and lowercase when preceded by "the" (e.g. the atmosphere of the earth). The term almost exclusively exists in lowercase when appearing in common phrases, even without "the" preceding it...


 * Now, remember that this began with your presuming to 'correct' the lower case spelling, changing it to upper case. I think that the burden must be on you, having presumed to 'correct' someone else, to show that your spelling is better or more standard usage. I think it's clear that the lower case is in fact the better and more standard usage in this context - even though there is no hard 'rule'. MdArtLover 14:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * MarylandArtLover, I fully concede that my "correction" was ill-informed, especially after researching the subject and reporting on it as I did. I now fully agree with you that the lower-case version is widely used and even the most common. Since it appears that both forms are correct, and you've withdrawn your "rule," I withdraw my "correction" and thank you for contributing to an interesting lesson on English usage. Best regards, Jack Bethune 18:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

i find it strange that there is no mention of the dutch landscape artist in this article, many of the dutch masters are known for their landscapes and they are generaly seen as pioneers in the field. it isn't for nothing the word landscape is a dutch loanword —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.117.233 (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Russian Landscape
In my opinion none add anything new or important to this subject and they should be removed...Modernist (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Without accompanying text to clarify their historical significance, these look tacked on. They may be notable artists, but they are not preeminent. Perhaps an example of Shishkin or Levitan, but again, there needs to be content to support inclusion in an article offering historical overview. JNW (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We've had an Arkhip Kuindzhi since the article was created, which given the pressure on space is enough, although one might squeeze in another classic. But a great number of these contemporary realists, added by an editor with a clear COI, cannot be justified. They don't seem very impressive works to me, I must say. Johnbod (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Topographical view
I have added topographical view here, and created topographical view as a redirect, so that other articles can be linked to an explanation of the term (instead of being linked to topography). Anyone who can think of a better place to describe them, or who can write a whole article on them, is welcome to make the appropriate changes. JonH (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Dutton link
As far as I can tell he's not notable as an art critic, or as an expert on landscape painting. Please desist in adding the link...Modernist (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Jane Frank Dorado No2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

 * Done...Modernist (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The Lead
The lead section should be a summery of the most important facts of the article. Landscape photography has its own article and shouldn't be mentioned so prominently in the lead, especially since its not the focus of this article. Is there any particular reason why you feel that this single sentence increase the reading value of this article?-- JOJ Hutton  12:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, as alsreay stated in edit summaries - Landscape photography falls under any normal definition of "Landscape art" but is not covered in this article, so needs a link to its own article. This is normal practice & I can't see why you are making such heavy weather of it. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Precisely...Modernist (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I already stated that it should have a link. The See Also section is the usual place for this. But I was thinking that perhaps a header could be devised for the top of the article. Such as This article is about Landscape Art. For Photography see Landscape Photography. Or something of that effect. Per WP:LEAD, The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. Since Landscape photography is not part of this article, it really shouldn't be featured so heavily in the lead, especially in the way it is presented. Its like "breaking the fourth wall", when sentences say "covered in its own article", and it breaks up the reading.-- JOJ Hutton  13:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly it's fine. Although we should probably add a section highlighting Ansel Adams and a few other important artists who use landscape in their photographic art. Thanks for the suggestion...Modernist (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So are you suggesting that the article should expand to Photography? I'm not against that, but there is already an article for that, but to be honest, that other article isn't very good. Maybe that article should just redirect here and a photography section created and expanded here. JOJ  Hutton  14:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not at all. It's fine as it is, per Modernist above, though photo additions should go at the other article. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Its not fine as it is because the lead is discussing aspects of another article. Thats the not the scope of the lead section. The lead should serve as a summery of this article and not another. I have introduced and/or supported at least three compromise solutions. All of which are within the guidelines and are reasonable.-- JOJ Hutton  15:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As I said the lead is precise and correctly mentions landscape photography as art; as it should; and then wikilinks to the other article - which does clearly needs work. The other article needs expansion to include landscape photography as art - via important landscape photographers like Ansel Adams, Bruce Percy, Michael Kenna, and Sally Mann's landscape work among others. As well as some background and history...Modernist (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Johnbod (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But the lead of this article is suppose to summarize this article. There is nothing in this article about landscape photography. Something could be added, as previously suggested, but the current scope of this article does not include photography so it violates WP:LEAD. JOJ Hutton  01:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it explains the scope, and points to where the other stuff is. Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The sentence prior to the sentence mentioning Landscape photography relates to historical "Landscape art", mentioning a period stretching back 1000 years. Thus the mention of "Landscape photography" is a logical segue into the 19th century and the present time. Thus I don't see the sentence mentioning "Landscape photography" as out of place. But I have a question—why isn't this article titled "Landscape painting"? Bus stop (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure how well that works for Asian ink landscapes, though they are of course paintings. Sculptural reliefs and mosaics are actually quite significant to the early history, though I don't think the article currently has much on them, nor modern Land sculpture etc. But I'd rather keep the broad title so as not exclude these going forward. I dislike the wiki-habit of concentrating on painting to the exclusion of other art - cf our Italian Renaisssance articles etc. Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I asked myself this same question as well and came to the conclusion that "Landscape Painting" doesn't cover other art forms such as drawing and what not. Still it begs to differ that there still isn't anything in the article related to photography, and no it does not define the scope. The entire sentence sounds robotic. Almost like it was inserted as an afterthought. Especially the part about "covered on another article". Wikipedia articles usually don't break the so called "fourth wall" and say that something is in another article. That's the type of editing I expect from inexperienced users, not seasoned veterans. Then another question arises, why can't there be another article titled "Landscape Painting"? If there is a an article only about photography why couldn't there be an article only about painting? BTW, I originally came to this article by searching "Landscape Painting". JOJ Hutton  01:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And prints of course. "Landscape Painting" redirects here, and it's own article would be imo unecessary duplication, when so many other articles need writing. But you are free to do so if you want. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Could it still not be rewritten to conform to a more encyclopedic tone? "Defining the scope if the article" is fine, but it just sounds wakeful the way it is right now. JOJ  Hutton  12:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Initially when we worked on this article I also was leaning toward Landscape painting - however the larger subject can embrace Ukiyo-e and other graphic and visual arts...Modernist (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The word "art" is understood. It doesn't need to be in the title. The title should be more incisive. Paragraphs on techniques that are not, strictly-speaking, painting, could be prefaced with wording allowing for that inconsistency. Bus stop (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * And lets be honest, most people wouldn't think of "photography" when they think of "art", yes its an art form all in its self, but so is baking a cake so we may as well say in the lead that Cake has its own article too because bakers, the artist, can add miniature trees to the top of the cake. Now of course I'm being facetious, but its obvious that the scope of this article does not intend to include photography, no matter how artful it is. When editors wish to define the scope of an article and not include something that may have been included under different circumstances, they(we) add a header such as
 * I realize that is not the exact correct template, but its the best I could find quickly. I just wanted to convey the idea because this is the correct way of defining the scope of the article and directing people to another useful article. In fact its even better and more useful because its not hiding within the text, but is in a convenient and noticeable position. Would anyone have any objections to this template as opposed to how it is written in the lead now?-- JOJ Hutton  20:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly the consensus is to let the lead alone. The lead is fine - I suggest you move on...Modernist (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just offering a viable compromise solution that is well within the guidelines of Wikipedia. I think I'll get an WP:RFC going and get some outside opinions, because frankly its not fine.-- JOJ Hutton  20:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just offering a viable compromise solution that is well within the guidelines of Wikipedia. I think I'll get an WP:RFC going and get some outside opinions, because frankly its not fine.-- JOJ Hutton  20:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Stop wasting our time - The lead is fine per WP:Lead per Lead...Modernist (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you feel that it is a waste of your time then don't participate in the RFC. But I don't consider the current wording to be fine. It's very awkward and there is a better way to present the same information. JOJ  Hutton  00:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made this edit. It is only for consideration. I don't intend it to be the "final word" on the topic. But I like it because it highlights the term "technique". I think it is unobtrusive, and yet it alerts the reader immediately as it is on top of the article. Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thats a better header than what I came up with. I also think that the words Covered in its own article should also be removed since its not encyclopedic. I'll keep the RFC open unless we can come to another compromise. Personally I feel that if this article was to to be presented for Good Article consideration, that phrase would be highly scrutinized.-- JOJ  Hutton  15:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an endorsement. Can we have any other responses from any other concerned editors? Bus stop (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well lets see if User:Modernist and User:Johnbod have an opinion on this compromise.-- JOJ Hutton  22:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't like it I'm afaraid. Anyway, I don't see LP as a "technique" though it may involve various techniques. Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

RFC: How should the scope of the article be presented in terms of Landscape Photography?
How should the article define the scope of the topic, within terms of Landscape Photography?
 * Should it be as it is now in the lead:
 * Landscape photography has been very important since the 19th century, and is covered by its own article.
 * Or should it be presented as a header:

Any comments would be helpful. Thank you.-- JOJ Hutton  14:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I will present my opinion once again. I simply feel that by saying and is covered by its own article., is a bit un-encyclopedic, especially in the lead. I feel that there is and has been a tried and true method for defining the scopes of articles. Usually when an article needs to direct readers to a similar topic that is not covered in the main article, there is usually a template header added to redirect people. That is what I am proposing here. It gets the same job done and is more encyclopedic than the current wording. -- JOJ Hutton  14:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine as was per myself and others above. At the least there is a loss of information in the proposed change. I don't see anything unusual in the original, and hatnotes are distracting clutter that should be avoided where possible. Johnbod (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Let it be per WP:Lead and more precisely Lead. A hatnote is not required in this case (although I have added a modified one); and because landscape photography is a visual art that may or may not ultimately be included in this article about landscape art the direct link to Landscape photography as it is now is more appropriate...Modernist (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's good, and thanks for the policy ref, which should settle this matter. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually it doesn't settle the matter. The statement, "..and is covered by its own article.", is still in the sentence, which is the heart of the problem I believe. All I'm trying to do is write this article to a more encyclopedic tone. That statement is not encyclopedic. The MOS example Lead is a bit misleading, especially as it pertains to the overall article's tone. The example article that the MOS section gives is Fever, which explains why Hyperthermia is not the same as Fever. But never does it say "covered in its own article". But with Landscape art, the lead says that Landscape Photography is important since the 19th century, which means that Landscape photography IS the same as Landscape art, but somehow not covered in this article and even that not explained as to why it is not covered. Unlike the Fever example, which does explain why its not covered in the article. Anyone see the difference and why the current wording is awkward?-- JOJ  Hutton  14:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are incorrectly interpreting both guidelines and policy and consensus is against you. There is no problem except in your mind. Drop it and read WP:IDON'TLIKEIT; it's beyond boring - per: WP:DFT let's stop feeding the troll...Modernist (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's get real here - you say: All I'm trying to do is write this article to a more encyclopedic tone. - Johnbod's contribution to this article is 182 edits; mine are 121 edits - we both are the major contributors to this article and you - have 2 minor and basically deleted edits that don't hold any water or encyclopedic meaning. Try another article perhaps one where you can actually contribute encyclopedic information...Modernist (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well lets see what others who are not major contributors to this article have to say. I will remind you that anyone can edit articles, not just a few selected users. I will also remind you that anyone can attempt to improve an article, and calling someone a troll because you disagree with their point of view is basically a personal attack.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  16:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Photography is a form of art. Therefore, I think that an article called "landscape art" should include content about photography. Now, there are two valid options: add text on photography to this article, or rename this article to "landscape painting". --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See above - that would have to be Landscape painting, drawing, printmaking, and some sculpture. Johnbod (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have a problem with either of those proposals. Its getting the point where some of the regular contributors of this article have figuratively dug themselves into the sand and refuse to budge on anything. If they want to expand the article, then lets do that. If they want to rename the article then we can do that to. But we cannot keep going down the same unproductive path.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  17:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There's only one little point, and we just don't see a problem. Just because you are persistent, which you certainly are, doesn't mean we have to accomodate you. Johnbod (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Johnbod—what about NaBUru38's point: photography being a form of art, this article should include content about photography. Let me just add my understanding of some of the relevant questions. I think we are looking for the most logical arrangement of the factors we've been discussing. But I am doubtful that a perfectly logical arrangement of these is attainable. Therefore we are looking or the least illogical. Bus stop (talk) 11:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussed above, in more than one place. It is precisely because of this point that the sentence that so bothers Jojhutton is needed, to explain that that content is somewhere else, where I and others think it should remain, as this article covers a big enough topic anyway. Johnbod (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I've never made an edit to this article, however I am a landscape artist in that I regularly paint (physically and digitally) and draw, and occasionally 'sculpt' and photograph landscapes. Contrary to what Johnbod said above, this article is about landscape painting in particular. It gives almost no information about any other medium, except maybe ink washes, which aren't really very distinct from paintings at all, and aren't even held to be distinct by the article. Every single example shown in the galleries is either a painting or an ink wash. There are no drawings, no photographs, no etchings, no lithographs, no sculptures, etc, etc... Unless the article is filled out with more information about other forms of landscape art, I believe it should have its name changed to "Landscape Painting". MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That a good idea. I might just get an RM on that the first chance I get. JOJ  <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  13:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That may be true at present, but would you agree that if material on prints and drawings were added it would make far more sense to have it here than in Landscape printmaking and Landscape drawing? Whereas landscape photography is fundamentally different, not least because the artist can't (or used not to be able to) rearrange the landscape the way the traditional media traditionally have?  As I say above it is a bad habit of Wimipedia to have articles about painting only that should be about art in general - see Italian Renaissance art. That really is unencyclopedic. Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would. However, I feel that there needs to be information on the history, technique, popularity and famous figures of other mediums, as well as examples of them. That being said, I think it would make more sense to roll all the arts into one article. I'm not concerned that painting might dominate the article, because painting dominates the visual arts in general, but effort needs to be made to ensure that other mediums get their fair share of coverage, as well. As for landscape photography, I'm fine with it having it's own article. Photography in general is a very distinct art form, with very different techniques, practices, norms and results. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  12:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Except I'm reluctant to agree that "painting dominates the visual arts in general" as a general statement, though that is the popular conception in our culture (which would make little sense in Africa, or much of Asia). But for landscape art it is true. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Semantics aside; I think we agree; material regarding other art forms can be included here and as of now photography has its own article as is stated in the lead. Correctly...Modernist (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Historically both painting and sculpture dominate the visual arts...Modernist (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would change the title of this article to Landscape painting. I think this article should address all works of art utilizing landscape as subject matter—regardless of the technique employed to execute the work of art. I would put a hatnote at the top of this article reading something like: "This article addresses artworks utilizing landscape as subject matter. Techniques other than painting are also addressed in this article." I think this article should address the landscape in photography but not in as great a depth as that found at the "Landscape photography" article. The paragraph in this article addressing landscape photography should have its own hatnote reading something like: "Also see Landscape photography." Bus stop (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would change the title of this article to Landscape painting. I think this article should address all works of art utilizing landscape as subject matter—regardless of the technique employed to execute the work of art. I would put a hatnote at the top of this article reading something like: "This article addresses artworks utilizing landscape as subject matter. Techniques other than painting are also addressed in this article." I think this article should address the landscape in photography but not in as great a depth as that found at the "Landscape photography" article. The paragraph in this article addressing landscape photography should have its own hatnote reading something like: "Also see Landscape photography." Bus stop (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Rename. If this article is about Landscape painting, then it should be named Landscape painting. Seems simple enough. --GRuban (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes but it isn't (just about that), so it isn't. Johnbod (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Rename to Landscape painting. Both that topic and Landscape photography are broad enough to warrant separate articles. Perhaps consider creating "Category:Landscape Art" and categorizing each article within. SueDonem (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Needless to say, Category:Landscape art exists. Johnbod (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not exactly "needless to say" apparently. Thanks for the information. :-) SueDonem (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Landscape painting. 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/20081029150405/http://www.abbeville.com/factsheets/F06_Fctsht_Landscapes.pdf to http://www.abbeville.com/factsheets/F06_Fctsht_Landscapes.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090301110749/http://www.learnpainting.net/paintingdemonstrations/ to http://www.learnpainting.net/paintingdemonstrations/

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) 18:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Overillustrated
This page is overillustrated and could use some cuts. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * From the East Asian tradition it seems OK overall. But the whole Western tradition section could use better integration of pantings into the text (and less image sandwiching). Would suggest removing the Eckenbrecher to help prevent all the images from being pushed below the sections the text they actually relate to (because that's what's happening on my screen). Aza24 (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really on mine. People use so many different screen sizes and shapes, and size settings, that one can't make articles ideal for everyone. Plus most readers are using mobiles these days, where the view is wholly different. (Re)moving the very vertical Dongtian Mountain Hall might help, but it is a good typical image.  Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but it's usually not that difficult to try and satisfy at least most screens. I just tried to move things around, feel free to revert. I put the Renaissane paintings in their section and removed the Li Cheng (its already below) and Dong Yuan (too vertical). And now we have room to put a proto-landscape from the middle ages (which there were none of before) and another Renaissance painting (maybe that early Leonardo sketch?) Aza24 (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't say I find that an improvement myself. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Painting
Shouldn't the definition at the start of the article be something like: 'a painted depiction of natural scenery...'. Is there any landscape painting that isn't a painting? Wikifan153 (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, added. But do you really think anyone was misled or confused by its absence? Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)