Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts

Different artworks? Different pages?..
Hello editors,

I have a question about Follow my dreams page. It is about a hand-painted mural by the italian artist TVBoy in 2022 in the city of Barcelona. This mural was originally called "Super Alexia" where you could read in the background the phrase: "Follow your dreams" with the footballer Alexia Putellas stepped out painted in a Superwoman outfit with a cape clearly visible on her back. In 2023, due to the multitude of vandalism acts, the artist decided to redo the mural, but neither the phrase nor the drawing of the player were the same. You can see the clear differences with the 2022 painting: and the 2023 updated painting:

In the Talk:Follow my dreams I proposed to make different articles because the new painting of 2023 should be treated as a completely different one even if it is located in the same place and on top of the old painting. The painting and the message in the background is totally different as you can read in the article:

Throughout history, many painters have painted over other paintings and they have never been treated as updates of these but yes as a different works. It is currently an active dispute with user that recently moved the page (Super Alexia to Follow my dreams) and reverses the edits I made because he wants to fix the date of the old 2022 painting but the name "Follow my dreams" was created in the year 2023 not in 2022.

What do you think?

January 15th birthdate vandal
I think there is somone going round putting in "15 January" in artist birthdates where even the year is uncertain, never mind the day. Here he is at Donatello. Unfortunately it is one of those ips where the address changes with each edit. I don't know if it is just artists he does. Is there a way of getting a list of WP 15 Jan birthdays (I don't know if he touches Wikidata)? For dates before say 1800, as I haven't seen him changing a date that's there, just adding 15 Jan when there is no date. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Cleaning up article for an artist who added information to an article about himself
Hello! I recently stumbled upon an article about a Greek artist named Vassilis Vassili. Although the subject of the article did not seem to originally create the article, he did recently start editing it substantially (and based on the page's edit history, may have edited substantially in the past using IPs or another similarly-named account). I have been educating him about the conflicts of interest policy on his Talk page. I am coming to this WikiProject page to request help with cleaning up the article in accordance with the standards for visual artists' articles on Wikipedia. I am assuming y'all are familiar with what these standards are. I, in contrast, am not familiar with these standards, and know very little about art overall. I assume that a lot of the information needs to be removed. I can help with grammar cleanup, matching info to sources, and stuff like that, but I don't know how much info should be retained on the page in the first place, and I was hoping y'all could help with that. Thank you! Gottagotospace (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Straightening out metadata
Hello there. I've a question about the attribution of a painting and don't really possess the background necessary to evaluate the matter authoritatively. I've been working on a rewrite of the Spartan lawgiver Lycurgus. There seem to be two paintings from the late 18th century of him:


 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jean-jacques-francois_le_barbier_called_le_barbier_laine_la_magnanimit060915).jpg
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lycurgus_of_Sparta,_Jean-Jacques_Le_Barbier.jpg

They have similar poses etc. The first is attributed to Jean-Jacques-François Le Barbier. The second is attributed in the metadata to Jacques-Louis David with a source. But an image of the second is included in one of the references supporting the attribution of the first: https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-6338034. The former's attribution seem rather convincing. Is the second wrongfully attributed? Ifly6 (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, according to Christie's "Le Barbier worked out his composition in a handsome oil sketch (37 x 45 cm.) that was purchased by the Musée de Blois in 1936 as a work by David (fig.1). The sketch, which bears a false monogram, was first identified as Le Barbier’s study for the present painting in 1990 by David A. Wisner." Blois/Commons seem reluctant to let go of the more prestigous name. Their's is clearly a sketch & far smaller.  Johnbod (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Notice of reliable sources noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard about the reliability of Dani Cavallaro's work. Members of this WikiProject may be interested in joining as her publications are cited in multiple articles related to Gustav Klimt. The relevant thread is at. Thanks! Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Village pump (idea lab)
Self-explanatory (not about the Wikipedia Monument). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Madonna
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Madonna that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Three Ages of Man and Death
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Three Ages of Man and Death that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Polyamorph (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

FAR notice: Middle Ages
I have nominated Middle Ages for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Borsoka (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Gettysburg Cyclorama
Gettysburg Cyclorama has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion attempts of major Matisse and Derain paintings
An alert that there are now many ongoing deletion nominations of Henri Matisse paintings, such as Goldfish (1912), Bathers with a Turtle (1908), his La Danse images, his Notre Dame paintings, etc. The same for Derain. Too many to keep up with on July 4 and 5, and seems to be taking a sieve to Wikipedia collections of these paintings, most of Matisse's have articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The deletion nominator's complaint is that even though they were made before 1929, a paintings counts as being "published" from the point when official copies are first made available to the public. I'm not sure how to go about finding out the dates of when the first copies of these paintings were first made available.
 * As I understand it, works are considered to be in the public domain 70 years after the death of their creators if they were published post-humorously or never technically published. Matisse and Derain both died in 1954, which was 70 years ago. That means that these paintings will all definitely be in the public domain by the end of the year, even if they were technically first published after 1929.
 * I hope this helps. GranCavallo (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is semi-correct. There are some odd quirks that come from the "publication" rule. There are definitely instances where a work can still be copyrighted in the United States 70 years pma. It's not common, but it can happen, mostly when it comes to works first published outside the U.S., and usually only in select American states that are under the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit (you can read more here). Unfortunately, because WikiMedia's HQ is in California, that means all US WikiMedia entities are also subject to the 9th circuit's ruling. So to prove that these works can stay, someone would need to find the first instances of their publication abroad and/or in the U.S. If you check the Hirtle chart, I believe these works would be categorized under "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations" in the first "Special Cases" example ("1 July 1909 through 1978").
 * I would note that these deletion requests may seem a bit overwrought, but the nominator is not incorrect to point out the issue. Les Héritiers Matisse (the legal managers of Matisse's estate) still claim copyright over basically everything Matisse made and they're represented by the Artists Rights Society on U.S. copyright issues, so they clearly care about their copyright. Obviously they're probably just making broad claims to preserve (read: profit off) as much intellectual property as they can and ward off would-be re-users of the artworks, but they could definitely be right about any number of the works. I'm going to re-post part of my comment on the first linked deletion request to give my two cents.
 * I agree that Wikipedia would be better off if these images were kept. But without proof, we can't know for sure that these would pass legal muster as public domain in the (entire) United States. 19h00s (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Each of Matisse's paintings with articles should have a fair use template on it so the images are kept. Simple as that. The only reason those templates haven't been placed before is that we thought the early 20th century paintings were in public domain. I've asked the nominator to place those templates but not done as far as I know. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Please take not of this discussion: Village_pump_(policy)
A further attempt to cull Wikipedia's art collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)