This page is within the scope of WikiProject Vienna, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Vienna on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ViennaWikipedia:WikiProject ViennaTemplate:WikiProject ViennaVienna articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArtsWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsTemplate:WikiProject ArtsWikiProject Arts articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial design on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Industrial designWikipedia:WikiProject Industrial designTemplate:WikiProject Industrial designIndustrial design articles
@Catherine Lemieux, which three (and only three) sources are the strongest for showing WP:notability? We need to see three sources, all of which represent
significant discussion of the subject himself
in reliable sources
that are independent of the subject.
At least one of them needs to be from outside his local area. Valereee (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, S00091! Catherine, I'm busy today and for the next few days (family coming in) but I'll get to this after that. If I don't, reply here and I'll see it, as I'm subscribed. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Catherine, sorry, been doing other things, and these three references looked like they were going to take some investigation, because I'm not familiar with them. For instance, in their comment an earlier reviewer said that designboom accepted submitted content, so not a RS. The Der Standard piece the other editor said seemed to be an editorial by the museum?, so not independent. I don't have access to the Thames and Hudson book, unfortunately, but you need three sources that are each significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Valereee (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee Thanks for your time, but I would appreciate if you could review the references yourself, since Design Boom does not accept submitted content, they accept submitted content only for products, not for reviews of exhibitions. The piece in Der Standard is not an editorial of the museum. Der Standard is a newspaper of record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Standard. I am disappointed that because of an unprofessional review of another editor, I am penalised and nobody considers my submission. I would appreciate if anybody could consider and acknowledge the mistakes the first editor made or if anybody could give me any constructive feedback. And if books are not accepted as significant independant sources, isn't then wikipedia a joke? Catherine Lemieux (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Catherine, it's not that I didn't review them, and you aren't being penalized. It's that the other editor was already familiar with these sources so I looked at what they said about them, then looked at the sources, and agreed they looked iffy. Thanks, @S0091, for looking at Chair Anatomy. So, Catherine, that would be one. We need three.
Books published by reputable publishers are accepted as independent sources, but I could not get to this book to check the significance of the coverage. Valereee (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could I please know why the reference of Der Standard does not qualify? It looks iffy to you because you don't know the newspaper and because the by-line is at the end and not in the beginning of the article? I repeat again, Der Standard is an independant major newspaper of Austria, the piece is not an editorial of the museum, it was written by independent journalist Michael Hausenblas. So please tell me what disqualifies this source. 77.119.174.47 (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at designboom's About us page, it exists it promote designers and architects and they state 35% of content comes from our reader submissions, which invites creatives and makers — regardless of place, position, prestige, religion, nationality, or gender — to communicate their work to a huge, international audience. another 35% of our stories is based on in-house research, coverage of international exhibitions and fairs, interviews and studio and manufacturer visits. the remaining 30% is following breaking news and the daily reception of press releases. so certainly not a reliable independent source. I also note it does not have a by-line nor does the derStandard article which is a hallmark for press releases or the like.
Looking at what bits are available here of Chair Anatomy, it does appear to go in-depth about the design and construction of each chair and is a reputable publisher so I think that does count as in-depth coverage. S0091 (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 Thank you so much for taking the time to answer.
The readers's submission on designboom are for products, but not for reviews. But anyways, I will just delete this one.
If Der Standard is not accepted as an independent source, I really don't understand which media is. It's a major newspaper of Austria and it is recurrently cited on wikipedia.
The first editor who reviewed the draft did not consider one article article because it incorporated an interview, but it is by the national radio of Austria. Could this be considered a source ? https://wien.orf.at/v2/radio/stories/2518320/
The author of the piece in der Standard is mentioned, it is Michael Hausenblas (it is at the end of the article and not in the biginning like a normal by-line, but most articles in Der Standard have such a by line) 77.119.174.47 (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh..I see it now. They sneak it in lol. I also took another look at designboom and it does have a by-line at the end, Lea Zeitoun and they make it clear what is user submitted. However, they are still are not WP:RS because they exist to promote artists. I mean, their entire site is all about their "reach" and promotional activity.
A note about assessing sources, even the most reliable sources publish press releases (i.e. The Guardian, The New York Times) so sources are assess not only by the publisher but also the content within the article. S0091 (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091Ok thank you, now I understand the problem with Designboom. So that would mean that the piece in Der Standard (which is not a press release but a review) and the piece in the book by Thames and Hudson would count? Would the monograph on Rampelotto be considered a third reference? 77.119.174.47 (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can use designboom to support he exhibited at Istanbul Design Week but not useful for much else. Der Standard is a not really a review. It's more of a description of the exhibition but it is clear the author experienced the exhibition and mostly describing it in his own words (there's some content that is directly coming from Rampelotto) so I lean toward counting it toward notability. Another note about Chair Anatomy, I checked WorldCat and it is held at several universities. Of course, like Valereee I cannot directly verify the content so I am relying on you and what those bits tell me about the book.
I have no real way to assess the monograph. Googling, I only get the exhibition at rauminhalt harald bichler which as far I can tell is not a notable gallery. Checking the author, I only get this one publication which is also affiliated with the gallery which makes me lean toward it not being an independent source. S0091 (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 yes you’re right, Karin Schwarz-Honig has no other book, so I guess she works at the gallery Rauminhalt, which is known in Vienna.
He is a curator at the MAK. He did not however curate the solo show of Rampelotto (it was Marlies Wirth). I will need to check the book at the library, but as a design and architecture specialist, the contribution of Hackenschmidt does sound independent and pertinent to me. What do you think? Catherine Lemieux (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 I see that there are two monographs available at the library of the MAK. I will consult them and add them as sources if I find texts that are long enough and independent.
No, the purpose of the publication is to showcase his work on behalf of the gallery and MAK, both of which are affiliated with Rampelotto so a primary source and not independent. It can be used to support basic uncontroversial facts though so might still be helpful for building the article. I also found this book via Internet Archivehere (which did let me view the page once but will not let me again) but it also is not independent given that artist's are presenting their own work. Note, I did search for sources a while back when you posted at the AfC helpdesk but was unable to find anything useful BUT I am limited to English sources. What I found were brief mentions usually in interior design articles where the designer used his work so a lot of "lamp by Patrick Rampelotto". Also, don't worry about not having quite enough yet. There is no deadline here and it is not uncommon even for experienced editors to work on a draft for years until enough sources come together (a la User:Valereee/To Do). S0091 (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 Yes, it is true that most references on Rampelotto are in German, and the mainstream media coverage always include an interview, which I cannot use for WP. Some examples here:
I have a question concerning the validity of contributions by curator Hackenschmidt. You mention that his texts merely are a "showcase" for the work of Rampelotto. It seems to me that there is a very important difference to make here between the work of a gallery (that is of course making profit out of the sales of works of art) and the work of an institution such as the MAK, which mandate is not to "promote" artists, but to develop a historical archive and to make knowledge and artefacts available to the greater public.
If the work of an institutional curator like Hackenschmidt is reduced to "showcasing" artists, it means that the criteria for artists notability on WP fail, since it is of course curators like him that, as experts in their fields, define which artistic contributions are relevant and will stay in permanent collections.
As a scholar, it seems to me that the notability of an artist is defined by his peers occupying high functions in cultural institutions (for instance Professor Orrom, author of the book by Thames and Hudson or Hackenschmidt), way more than by a journalist, whose task is to relay information and not to produce legitimate knowledge or to manage a historical archive.
I also wonder why the notability of Rampelotto's work is not at all attested by the acquisition of several works by the MAK, as is manifest on their website documenting their permanent collection. (WP Notability: a)"A piece that has been purchased or displayed by notable expositions") or by his winning of a design price.
I understand that WP priviledges online contributions over books, simply because of the availability for verification. But I still feel puzzled by the the fact that a scientific contribution seems to have less value than a mainstream media article (which most of the time, consist in a visit in the designer's atelier and/or an interview). If WP is about sharing knowledge, shouldn't institutional experts be considered sources, instead of promoters? Catherine Lemieux (talk) 09:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Catherine Lemieux. WP doesn't privilege online sources over stuff not available online. Info at WP:SOURCEACCESS. All else being equal we prefer an online source if one is available; as all else is seldom equal that generally means if a particular source is available both in print and online, we'd rather you include the online version. It doesn't mean we consider an online source more reliable than one that's not online.
Institutional experts can be considered sources except in certain cases. The curator of an exhibit (or anyone else associated with the institution) can't be a reliable source for saying "This is an important exhibit of X's work", for instance. Someone else not associated with the institution needs to be saying such things. And even "Artist X was one of the most important contributors to the Y movement" is suspect if the source is an employee of an institution exhibiting X's work. Now, if it's the Z museum down the road admitting that the exhibit of artist X's work at their rivalliterally any other well-regarded museum is important, of course they're a reliable source. Valereee (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Catherine Lemieux, there are indeed special considerations for artists, which are at WP:ARTIST. If Rampelotto fits under these, we totally should have an article, and those would prove notability. Valereee (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
S0091, lol over my to do list. :D Valereee (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee @S0091 That does not answer my question concerning the contributions of Hackenschmidt in particular.
In your answer, you treat museums as market "competitors", which is nothing short of demagogical. There are no "rival" to the Museum of applied arts of Vienna, because of course there can only be one single museum of this kind in Austria! As with any other public-law academic institution.
Your comment deny any objective authority to experts working in public institutions, which, again, is demagogical. As if experts were writing articles only defending their opinion.
You treat Rampelotto as some sort of "client" or "employee" (as being "affiliated with the MAK"). Was Andy Warhol "affiliated with the Moma" because the institution exhibited and purchased its piece? Your comment is implying, for instance, that an expert working at the Moma could not "independently" declare the work of Warhol notable, because he works at an institution that purchased his piece. I of course take the example of Warhol to underline the aberrant inconsistencies of your reasoning.
You seem to consider all discourses on arts and aesthetics as marketing material, which leads me to think you do not know what curatorial work is. An article by a curator, for instance Hackenschmidt, does not assest something as puerile as "it is the most important exhibition from X" but offers historical background and scholar interpretation of a work of art. Catherine Lemieux (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Catherine, please try to assume good faith. I am trying to help you understand our policies so that you can get this article into a condition we can accept it, and honestly you're making me not want to spend my limited volunteer hours on this. Valereee (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091@Valereee I see absolutely no good faith on your side (trying to recognize your shortcomings or misunderstandings). I am fed up with this non-sense and regret wasting my time here. I leave Wikipedia and erase my draft. Catherine Lemieux (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm sorry to hear it. Academics often do have a hard time with the learning curve here, it's really a vastly different kind of research and writing, but I always am glad when one sticks around to figure it out. Best to you. Valereee (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! Really, Catherine??? I have tried in good faith to assess the sources and have agreed two contribute to notability so I am certainly trying to work with you. As to your most recent concerns, I was digging around Wikipedia to determine historically how the community views monographs written by those with some affiliation. Please keep in mind we are all volunteers here so do want we want to do when we want to do it and I chose to spend my time trying to help this draft even conducting my own research trying to find additional sources. But yeah, I agree with Valereee when I get a response like this it's time to step away and contribute to something else more fulfilling. S0091 (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
