Talk:Newtown area graffiti and street art

Tags on Front Page
to me, it seems a moot point whether this is 'encyclopedic' or not, but deletion would probably be an ultra-strict interpretation of the rules. The tags also seem quite misleading as to what the 'problem' with this article might be, and how to fix it. Any ideas? Miscreant 03:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes to article
I've removed the earlier tags, as I've carried out a substantial edit of this article over the last few days, added references, reorganised the layout and added many new images. I'd appreciate any feedback on this. Thanks. Dunks 01:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

re: image use tag
I am puzzled by the inclusion of this tag -- it seems laughable to me that an article about graffiti and street art can be cited for excessive use of images (who is the arbiter of what constitutes 'excessive' use?). As far as copyright is concerned, I hereby declare that all these images used in this article are original photographs taken by me over the last 3-4 years. Dunks (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Serial Pest
The hand painted capital leters on the wall of St Stephens cemetary are vandalism by serial pest Peter Hore. I suggest its deletion as it of no artistic relevance to anyone, nor does this man deserve any further publicity.Benvenuto (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of images?????
Haven't checked in on Wiki for a few weeks (holidays) but I return to find that that all the images *I* took and patiently uploaded for this article have been deleted. Seriously - WTF??? How can this be done so abruptly and with evidently so little consultation? All these images were original photographs taken by me and ought to have been clearly tagged as such. Furthermore, nearly all of these images are of works of "street art" (i.e. illegally-placed graffiti) which no longer exist. Dismayed isn't quite the word - how about mightily pissed off? Grrrrrrr. Dunks (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't follow the debates on Commons, I'm afraid, although some are still ongoing. Commons does make exceptions for graffiti, so there may well be a case to be made there. In Australia, the freedom of panorama laws hit interesting problems with murals - while you are allowed to take photos of 3D objects, such as sculptures in public spaces, it appears that 2D works such as murals are treated differently. . Anyway, you may be able to argue for the graffiti and include the appropriate tag on Commons, but the standard FoP provisions for Australia don't seem to apply. - Bilby (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback Bilby - I'll have to investigate this further, tho I'm still perplexed by the speed with which the deletions were done and the evident lack of consultation. I've only been off the web for about three weeks and came back to find all these images deleted. I'm not a lawyer but doubtful that the FoP law would apply in this particular case; however I have a friend who specialises in copyright and related law, so I'll ask her opinion. I can understand it applying in regard to photos of legal, copyrighted publicly- or privately-commissioned mural works by known artists, but the key point here is that virtually all the images in the article are of illegally-placed graffiti which, and as you surely know, Australian local councils pretty uniformly regard these as vandalism, pure and simple. In the vast majority of cases the artists are unknown and completely unidentifiable (although I have had some recent success in identifying a few works) but above all, most of the graffiti I photographed is actually no longer in existence, so what's the problem? Anyway, I'll plod on and see if I can get this rectified. Dunks (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have a good argument in regard to illegal graffiti, as Commons tends to allow for it. You will need to tag it accordingly, but it should be ok. . - Bilby (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, after you unilaterally took them all down without consultation, *I* have to go through and re-tag all my images to get them back up? Thanks a bunch. You could have asked ... Dunks (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who deleted them - it seems to have all taken place on Commons. As far as I can tell, they stuck to the interpretation of the Australian law that freedom of panorama doesn't extend to 2D images. - Bilby (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Has this issue been resolved?--Soulparadox (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

See also section
I have removed items from this list, as the references were too broad—Zoo York and Marc Ecko are far more appropriate in a page about street wear or New York street culture.--Soulparadox (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Newtown area graffiti and street art. 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/20120207071350/http://www.stlukesenmore.org.au/Rector/graffiti_commentary.html to http://www.stlukesenmore.org.au/Rector/graffiti_commentary.html

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) 03:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Newtown area graffiti and street art 13.jpg