Talk:Public art in Vancouver

Comment
More information will be added. Citations and external links need to be found first, as well as photos that can be used. It will take a few days to find properly licensed photos etc. The article is still under construction. Brindle2009 (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Brindle2009

Also I think the guidebook is important since it outlines why public art is important, and what art contributes to a city. The website alone does not give a complete overview of the public art in Vancouver. They are both helpful resources and are included for that reason. Changes can be made to make it less prominent, but the photo was available to use. Brindle2009 (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Brindle2009
 * So what you seem to be suggesting is that it's impossible to have information about public art in Vancouver without referring to your recently-published guidebook. I'm afraid that sounds rather like advertising to me, since there's an excellent article covering the topic at Public art.  I was going to suggest that you might look at articles about public art in other cities to use as a model -- such as, for instance, Public art in Chicago or Public art in Toronto -- but there don't seem to be any other articles about the public art of any city in Wikipedia.  You may want to consider including a paragraph of information about Vancouver's public art -- not your guidebook -- in the Vancouver article instead of this entire article which somehow manages to miss naming a single piece of public art in Vancouver.  Accounting4Taste: talk 22:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And I note by the attribution to the cover photograph that you actually do represent the publisher, which makes this entire article a conflict of interest. I've therefore added that tag to the article.   Accounting4Taste: talk 22:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The amount of "other" information has been increased, so the guidebook is not a majority of the content. The image seems to be the primary issue. I will remove it. Brindle2009 (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Brindle2009

The amount of information is deserving of its own page, and because of increased tourism to Vancouver, it will make it easier for tourists to find resources on public art. The public art page is helpful, but this is a contribution to Vancouver's culture on wikipedia. Isn't there a difference between referencing a book and endorsing it? Brindle2009 (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Brindle2009

The article does have merit. It gives additional resources than the book in the intention of fairness and neutrality. It was designed with the guidelines in mind. If there is a specific conflict, I will change it, but referencing a guidebook to public art in an article about public art is logical. The amount of research on the city of Vancouver will increase over the next few months, and this page is intended as a way for more people to learn about the diverse public art available in Vancouver. Adding more information to the Vancouver page was an option, but it is already quite long. Art galleries in Vancouver (like the VAG) have their own pages, so it is not a stretch to think the public art community deserved one as well. Brindle2009 (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Brindle2009
 * So would you agree to put the title of the book in a "See also" section, perhaps linked as a citation to some appropriate reference, and to delete the large glowing paragraph about its virtues and other such references? I have no problem with having an article about public art in Vancouver.  I just have a problem with having an article about public art in Vancouver that's a thinly-disguised advertisement for your book.  Accounting4Taste: talk 23:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I will do that, although I rather like the stuff in italics. Could I keep part of it in the opening, with no association to the book? Brindle2009 (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Brindle2009
 * The first two sentences of the quotation seem like an appropriate introduction to the topic that could be in the lede paragraph, and it would be appropriate to cite the book that they come from in the references section. The rest of the italicized quote is not about the art, it's about the book.  There is a specific format for pull-quotes that can be used, although I don't know how to link you to it offhand; if you simply put the two sentences in the lede as a quote, it should be in Romans, not italics.  Accounting4Taste: talk 23:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for working with me on this -- as one of the handful of Vancouver administrators, I feel a special responsibility to make sure that Vancouverites are working within the boundaries here. You will note that I've deleted some extraneous material that didn't relate specifically and directly to the topic (the Public art article says that public art is outdoors, so I deleted the VAG reference) and material about our tourism, etc. is just not on-topic.  I've also done what's called "wikifying", to bring the article a little bit in line with the way articles are constructed here.  I've deleted my own "prod" tag as I feel this now has enough balance to really be considered an article about public art in Vancouver.  Accounting4Taste: talk 23:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Reddy Kilowatt a BC Hydro character, and not Alabama Power? Accounting4Taste: talk 23:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the help. Reddy has his own page, I verified. It could be an international symbol at this point. Brindle2009 (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Brindle2009

Rename
I propose moving this article to Public Art in Metro Vancouver so as to include works in the surrounding area as well (of which there is quite a bit!), while avoiding the clutter of making separate pages for public art in Burnaby, Richmond, etc. Hitoubashira (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)