Talk:Stella Vine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Changes[edit]

I changed the headers, this article is not a timeline, and while a chronological order makes sense, it doesn't make sense to name them for years. I moved around some material to more relevant sections, and tried to provide a narrative structure form what sources tells us are the milestones. They might be inexact, and further splitting and merging might be needed. Feel free to do so.

A salient issue I noticed is that there is some information in the "Art" section that belongs in the "Life" section and vice-versa. While sometimes this is inescapable - after all the subject is an artist, d'oh - I think we could make an effort to eliminate redundancies and misplacements in this respect.

In addition, I think this is article is way too long for an artist whose career is barely 6 years old, we could shorten it by eliminating alot of the quotes, interviews and opinions, and stick to facts around the artist.

This is not meant as a comprehensive biography, but an encyclopedia article about a living person. For example, most of the details of the early life are of no concern in an encyclopedic biography.

Compare this bio to say, Jackson Pollock, and you will see what I mean.

An encyclopedic biography is not meant to be an all-inclusive review of a subject's life, nor is it more lenght necessarly better. From what I can see, we could cut this article in half and still have an article that covers this subject better than Jackson Pollock's does its subject. But this is open for further discussion, unlike my other edits which are pretty much snowball.--Cerejota (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perplexed as to why Jackson Pollock, a B class article, is held to be a model. We should be looking to featured articles for the standard to work to. After all, an article has the potential to be one. I note, for example, that the FA, Douglas Adams, has over 50 articles related to the main one, so there is certainly scope for a detailed exploration, where those details are valid. There is no stipulated length for an article in proportion to the notional years of the subject's career (which I make getting on for 8, as it happens).
The article length should be commensurate with the amount of valid information pertaining to the subject. In this case, there happens to be a great deal, because Vine has accomplished a lot with many varied activities and has achieved considerable media coverage in the process, ending up as one of the best known artists in the UK. If the sources deem fit to highlight aspects of her life, such as childhood, then so should we (I have pruned some of the early material). Most of the information is appropriate to provide the reader with an article which, per WP:TPA, "acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject", so WP:SUMMARY would seem to be appropriate.
Ty 08:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know the article is looking better... Could we WP:SUMMARY the art section? That is not to mean that all mentions of art are to be on the sub-article, of course.
I hear your point on Jackson Pollock and actually didn't see it that way, but you are right - I went for mediocrity. The task is to expand Pollock, not reduce Vine.--Cerejota (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut out a lot of material and placed it in separate articles to retain the main narrative here. The Drogba painting, for example, attracted a lot of media coverage, although that's not reflected in the article at present. There's quite a lot of work that can still be done on all of this. I wonder if you have suggestions for headings on Talks and collaborations by Stella Vine. Ty 01:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article neutrality[edit]

There was an edit by an anon editor that I am "controlling" this article about Stella Vine in order to "destroy her career". The edit has been oversighted because of BLP considerations about a named individual. I do not consider this allegation justified, and have posted to User talk:82.34.219.82 to request specific specific examples of any alleged bias to be stated here. It might be noted that 821 out of 1523 edits to this article have been made by User:Madeofstars. Comments about the article's conformity to wikipedi policy with regard to alleged bias are invited below. Ty 16:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an observer of this article for a while, it seems clear that User:Madeofstars not only controls and patrols the article somewhat obsessively but he/she seems to attack User:Tyrenius a little too much..maybe it's time to take a break - it looks to me as though Stella Vine has a terrific article and she should be proud of the work done here...Modernist (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There have been attempts since 2005 to use this article to attack Thomson and the Stuckists, or to remove information about them: some examples where such edits have been reverted—from 2005[1][2][3][4], from 2007[5]—usually from a series of anon editors, but material removed by Madeofstars (talk · contribs) in 2008, e.g.[6]. These edits have been reverted by different editors, as, per NPOV, content about Vine's interaction with Thomson and the Stuckists is necessary material for the article: it has been featured in mainstream sources on many occasions and she has spoken about it prominently in the media. There have also been accusations of bias and attacks on editors, who have included such information, as from the IP mentioned above on this thread. See also Littlebunnysausage (talk · contribs) above at #Learning about art by default: "This wiki site for Stella Vine has so obviously been exploited by the stukist (sic) for years now"; and anon at Talk:Charles_Thomson, Stella Vine, and the Stuckists#False edit summary: "your edits are continually biased and misleading". There have not been any examples provided of what text is supposedly biased. Ty 05:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Encyclopedia, not a Magazine[edit]

Having looked at other Wikipedia articles featuring modern artists Francis Bacon, Salvador Dalí, Henry Moore, Pablo Picasso and Andy Warhol (two of the articles being featured articles), you find that pictures are used sparingly and are directly related to the article (being pictures of the artist, their work, and buildings/locations of note).

This article in contrast is littered with superfluous pictures, which add nothing to the article and make it look a mess. In fact this article more resembles a magazine article than an encyclopedia article.

I have therefore deleted the following superfluous pictures, which with the exception of the photo of Charles Thompson are all featured in the articles which are linked to in the main body text (the picture captions are all repetitions of text in the main body of the article).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Memphisto (talk • contribs)

I have moved the list of images with the comments attached to them to the section below #Examination of removed images, so they can be discussed in detail. Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

A consensus was reached for article content by editors working on this article and reviewing it. You need to establish a new consensus, if you don't agree with that. I have therefore reverted your edit, which removed most of the images from the article. This is the article before image removals, [7] and after the image removals.[8] Your edit summary was "removed superfluous pictures (please see discussion: An Encyclopedia, not a Magazine)".[9]

According to the guideline, Wikipedia:Images#Image_choice_and_placement: "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. Three uniformed portraits would be redundant for a biography of a famous general. A map of a battle and a picture of its aftermath would provide more information to readers." A variety of images have been presented near relevant text in this article.

Also in Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature: "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic." The images are relevant and significantly related. They all shows aspects of her life, experience, influences and relationships, which are in the text and referenced from reliable sources.

A rule of thumb is to "Try not to overwhelm the text with 'too many' pictures—one image or infographic every 250 words is a good guideline."[10] This ratio is advocated by others also.[11][12][13] The article is around 6,000 words, which by this rule of thumb equates to 24 images. There were 19 images in the article. The proposed removals reduce this to 4 images.

The decision as to what images are suitable is dictated by article content. If an aspect of the article is valid in words, then it is also valid in a picture, which is simply another way of communicating information, including that which cannot be easily put in words. The equation of images with a "magazine", when the same thing in text is deemed to be "encyclopedic" is an irrational prejudice against the visual as opposed to the literary. Far from being "superflous", images help the reader a great deal to engage with the subject and gain entry into the facets of it, especially when a reader may not be familiar with what something looks like.

It is not adequate to remove an image simply because it is in another article linked to in the text, if it is relevant to the subject of this article. Articles should be as complete as possible within themselves.

One reason for the lack of images in many articles is that they are not available and often severely restricted by wikipedia's fair use policy. This article benefits from the availability of free images, some taken by editors specially for it. It is not a question of paring this down to other image-poor articles, but of trying to bring them up to this standard, so the text is properly complemented by pictures: "Images aren't a requirement for any Featured Article, but asking for specific parts of articles which would benefit from having an image to be more illustrated is a valid objection."[14]

The image captions need to be pared down, and once the images are agreed on, this will be a simple job.

Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examination of removed images[edit]

Word count per section is a rough guide. Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section Early life
  • Section is 300 words. Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picture: File:Alnwick and Alnwick Castle - Northumberland - 140804.jpg Caption: Stella Vine was born in Alnwick, seen behind the Alnwick Castle.
    • Note: A photo of the actual house Stella Vine was born in could be used in the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Memphisto (talk • contribs)
    • It is perfectly valid to have a photo of the actual village she was born in. It shows her formative environment, which is in contrast to the environment of her later life: the photo shows the difference well. Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Section London
  • Three pictures in this section, which is around 740 words. One image could go.Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picture: File:Ross Newell crop.jpg Caption: Vine lived with Ross Newell, "the love of her life", for over four years.
    • She has said he is a significant figure in her life, so the image is relevant. Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picture: File:Mike Leigh (2008).jpg Caption: Vine met film director Mike Leigh in the late 1980s and auditioned for him twice.
    • She sees her encounter with him as a significant one and has talked about it recently. Weaker justification than Newell, but if that image gets deleted (which it's up for), then it is reasonable to keep this one. It shows a person she relates to. Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picture: File:Windmill-Theatre.jpg Caption: The Windmill Club, where Vine worked as a stripper to pay the rent whilst living with her son in bedsits.
    • This is a notable location in her life, and somewhere she worked for a number of years. Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Section The Stuckists
    • Section is 550 words, and can support two images. Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picture: File:Stuckism International Gallery 2004 (Charles Thomson).jpg Caption: Vine's marriage to Charles Thomson on 8 August 2001 lasted about two months.
    • As her (ex) husband, Thomson is obviously a significant figure, and is mentioned throughout this section. Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Section Rosy Wilde and Saatchi
  • Section is 1,300 words. Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picture: File:Princess Diana 1985.jpg Caption: After her mother's death in 2003, Vine painted 30 pictures of Diana, Princess of Wales. In 2009, Vine said she had been "in a bit of a crazy place" with grief.
    • Princess Diana was a significant focus for Vine and an inspiration for her work. This also allows the reader to compare the real life person with Vine's artistic depiction. Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are ok...Modernist (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Section Kate Moss paintings
  • Section is 670 words. Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picture: File:British Museum from NE 2.JPG Caption: The British Museum: Vine moved to a flat opposite in 2005.
    • A significant amount of this section concerns this environment. Vine has spoken about its significance for her. Again it shows the varying places she inhabits and gives the reader an insight into the context of her artistic production. However, her residence in Tavistock Square is also in the text and seems to have more significance both personally and for her art because of the London bombings, so I suggest substituting (a crop of) File:Tavistocksquarejuly2005.jpg looking towards where she lived at the time of the bombing (or else File:TavistockSquare.jpg). Ty
OK...Modernist (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed to Tavistock Square image, as this has greater importance in the text. Ty 23:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Section Rosy Wilde re-opens
  • Section is 450 words. Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picture: File:Ann-Summers-2.jpg Caption: The Rosy Wilde project space re-opened in 2006 above the Ann Summers shop in Wardour Street, London.
    • Note: A photo of the interior of Rosy Wilde could be used in the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Memphisto (talk • contribs)
    • Or a photo of the exterior, showing the environment where the gallery was also. I suggest substituting File:Ann-Summers-1.jpg for a wider view. Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to wider angle shot to show more of the building and immediate environment. Ty 23:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Section Modern Art Oxford
  • Section is 900 words. Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picture: File:ModernArtOxford.jpg Caption: Modern Art Oxford held Vine's first major solo show in 2007. Vine did not attend the press launch or the private view openings and said she's "not interested in being a celebrity myself.".
    • Significant as the venue of her most important show to date, extensively covered in the media. Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picture: File:Germaine Greer.jpg Caption: Germaine Greer wrote an essay in Vine's 2007 exhibition catalogue and also gave a public talk about Vine's work at Modern Art Oxford. Greer and Vine had previously taken part together in another public talk at the Women's International Arts Festival.
    • A significant collaborator and supporter. Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picture: File:Andy Warhol 1977.jpg Caption: Andy Warhol: Jackie Wullschlager in the Financial Times said Vine was his descendent.
    • Vine has likened herself to Warhol, and also been compared with him by at least two significant sources. This juxtaposition is an interesting and stimulating one, which brings home the point for the reader to make their own judgement.Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picture: File:Topshop Oxford Street London 2009.jpg Caption: Stella Vine designed a fashion range for Topshop in 2007 inspired by her artworks.
    • The venue for which the clothing was designed and where it was sold is also informative for the reader, and shows another facet of Vine's varied life, and an interesting contrast with Modern Art Oxford. However, it needs to go in the next section. Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Top Shop image moved to following section where the relevant text is. Ty 23:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Section Top Shop and Sport Relief
  • Section is 500 words. Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Top Shop image from preceding section needs to go in this section.
  • Image moved to this section. Ty 23:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picture: File:Drogba 2008-crop.jpg Caption: Didier Drogba: Vine painted him in 2008 for the Sport Relief charity.
    • Note: A photo of the original painting could be used in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memphisto (talk • contribs)
    • It is relevant as he is the subject and there was interaction between them for the painting. Some more text could be added about this. Again it demonstrates clearly the diversity of her artistic inspiration (cf Princess Diana). Using the painting means another non-free image, and is best avoided. Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picture: File:Eden Project Winter 2008 showing Bruce Munro field of Light.JPG Caption: Vine is creating new work for a large solo show at The Eden Project scheduled for summer 2010.
    • This can go. It's a future event and if it gets coverage in sources, the image can be reassessed. Ty
Image removed. Ty 23:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Section Future
  • Section is 80 words. Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picture: File:OxfordUnionTwo20040228CopyrightKaihsuTai.png Caption: Vine is speaking in a debate at the Oxford Union in February 2009.
    • This can go. There doesn't seem to be any further coverage of the event, after the initial announcement, so not significant. Ty 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image removed. Ty 23:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a new consensus[edit]

There is no need to reach a new consensus for the Stella Vine article, the consensus already exists within the following related articles - Francis Bacon, Salvador Dalí, Henry Moore, Henri Matisse, Pablo Picasso, Jackson Pollock, Andy Warhol and living artists articles Banksy, Tracey Emin, Jeff Koons and David Hockney. (I would again point out that the Salvador Dalí and Henry Moore articles have been featured articles – the very best articles on Wikipedia).

The use of pictures in these articles is limited to:

Pictures of the artist alone or with others.

Pictures of the artists work.

Pictures of buildings/locations of note to the artist.


As for the word/picture ratio, this would apply only to pictures that already meet the above requirements.


The pictures I have deleted do not meet these standards. Memphisto (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus does matter, the pictures are fine. She isn't Bacon, Warhol, Dali, Matisse, etc. and so she requires a differing approach. I completely disagree with comments by Mephisto. Firstly we do not compare artists to each other nor do we necessarily compare articles. Different issues, different characterizations, different works and different biographies define each separate article in different ways. I was among those who edited the Henry Moore article to FA status by the way. Thank you for your input - however the images are fine, a few of them can go, most are helpful...Modernist (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked to take a look by Memphisto. My first impression is that, per Tyrenius, a few of the images could be trimmed, but most of them are ok. Hope that helps. --John (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting images[edit]

Chancing across this article again, I've cut the following images as misleading:-

  • Princess Diana and Didier Drogba: a neutral reader will expect an image captioned as "Vine painted this person" to be a photo of that painting, it seems unnecessarily confusing to have a photo unrelated to Vine's work
  • Andy Warhol: inspiration and comparison does not merit the weight that a photo gives
  • Germaine Greer: similarly, Greer writing an essay doesn't seem significant enough for a photo
  • Top Shop: caption talks about her fashion range, image is (since it was taken two years later) not of that fashion range, and the article doesn't single out this particular store as significant, or whether the range was sold in all shops.

I've also clarified in the caption that the Windmill Theatre photo is not a contemporary one. --McGeddon (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reappraising the Stella Vine pages[edit]

It is difficult to criticise something that so much work has gone into but I'll put this out there in the hope that it will ultimately result in better coverage of this subject. Currently this page and the others associated with it (The art of Stella Vine, Talks and collaborations by Stella Vine, Charitable work by Stella Vine, Charles Thomson, Stella Vine, and the Stuckists, and Rosy Wilde) look a little bit like some kind of Stella Vine Internet Scrapbook rather than encyclopedia entries. They abound in trivia (she liked the TV series Bagpuss, she used to listen to PJ Harvey, plans for Christmas, etc), anecdotal information, surplus background material and long passages in need of summarising. These pages do a real disservice to an interesting contemporary painter and anyone wanting to research her. Maybe a consensus can be established that the content of the numerous Stella Vine pages be merged back to one critically edited, well-rounded and coherent page and that this should be illustrated with examples of her work and not photographs of people that she happens to have painted pictures of, people that she has been compared to or places that she lived near to. I hope that this comment will be taken in the spirit of constructive criticism in which it is intended. --Nofoto (talk) 08:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article construction is governed by various policies and guidelines, such as the standard procedure of WP:SUMMARY, which this one follows—namely separate articles on specific topics that are too large to fit into the main article. You may think this makes a scrapbook, but that's what's been agreed by widespread consensus. Check out a featured article such as Barack Obama. You will find this template at the bottom, showing all the split off content: {{Barack Obama}} (click show).
Regarding your point about "trivia", namely "she liked the TV series Bagpuss, she used to listen to PJ Harvey, plans for Christmas". You have taken the first of these out of context, which is:
She loved the TV series Bagpuss and said as an adult that the words and tunes were still in her head: "It had a dark edge to it - it filled your imagination."
This does not seem at all trivial, but shows a lasting involvement, which also gives insight into her character at an early age, and shows characteristics which have been seen in her mature work. Vine has expressed admiration for PJ Harvey as a role model. The article does not include this, but ideally should do, in which case the existing mention will become more significant. Again, "plans for Christmas" trivialises the actual text, which is:
Vine told The Guardian that she would spend Christmas Day 2008 with a run around the Serpentine, or a walk in Hyde Park or across London town with her son's bullmastiff dog and a small haversack of whisky and coffee.
This is not the usual way to spend Christmas, and gives an insight into the lifestyle of the artist. I don't see this as doing "a real disservice to an interesting contemporary painter", but quite the opposite. It enables the reader to gain an insight into her life, which is something a biography should do. For "anyone wanting to research her", there is a wealth of information about all aspects of her life and career. I don't see how reducing the amount of information is going to improve this. I would have thought the opposite should be the aim.
There is no need to merge back the other articles to make this one a "critically edited, well-rounded and coherent page." That can and should be done anyway. The others simply explore particular aspects in more detail (for "anyone wanting to research" further).
You say the article should be "illustrated with examples of her work". Her work is copyright and can only be used on wikipedia as fair use under our Non-free content guidelines, which are more restrictive than legal fair use and mandate minimal usage of such content. Two of her best known paintings are shown.
You object to "photographs of people that she happens to have painted pictures of, people that she has been compared to or places that she lived near to." To say "happens to" does not represent her relationship with her subjects, which she has described as having great personal importance for her, and are taken from media images (apart from family subjects). Images are a way of presenting information to the reader. If information is valid in textual form, then it is valid in another, i.e. visual form.
There is one photograph of a place "that she lived near to" (actually of the place that she lived in). There is a whole paragraph showing the importance of her experience in this location at the time of the July 2005 London bombings. She has, besides this, also talked on various occasions about the significance of location for her.
There is one image of someone "she has been compared to". This again is informative. However, you again omit the context, which is somewhat more than you indicate. The article says:
Vine said to The Independent on Sunday that she feels a strong connection to Warhol and having studied Warhol in depth on a course at Tate Modern she also considers herself as a similar type of character as him.
This, then, is Vine's own assertion of Warhol's importance, and, if she thinks he is important, it is not up to the Wikipedia editor to decide otherwise.
Additionally, all the images have been appraised on an individual basis in the section immediately above this one. Modernist is one of the most experienced visual arts editors, working to featured article quality. John is an admin of long standing. It is helpful to read previous discussions concerning an article to see if issues have already been raised and what points have been made about them.
As you say, a lot of "work has gone into" the article(s), but more than that there has been a lot of discussion involving different editors about the content. There is always room for improvement, but I don't see the suggestions to date are the way to do that.
Ty 01:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Badly needs Editing (butchering)[edit]

I came here accidentally but can't believe the amount of detailed material in this article about - let's be honest - a very minor/peripheral artist. A brief outline of her life and career highlights would suffice. I'm not sure that we need quite so many photographs of places where she apparently once lived. And photographs of subjects that she once painted. Ok, if that important, show the paintings but why the need for, say, a photo of Drogba? This is a self-written entry isn't it? No-one other than the subject could possibly have such a forensic interest in her life. Doesn't do Wikipedia any favours.... Twizzlemas (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed about the pictures - checking the archives I cut the silly ones out in 2009, but they were added back as "relevant to text and informative" shortly afterwards. It looks like the talk page section above this has a defence of some of the remaining pictures, although I don't agree with all of them (the photos of individual people, in particular, add nothing to the reader's understanding of the article).
The article length isn't a problem, though. Wikipedia is not printed on paper, there is no need to cut down articles about obscure subjects to make room for more popular ones. --McGeddon (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your last line made me smile and of course you're right. My objection is simply that I'm very interested in artists and their work but occasionally on Wikipedia I come across entries that seem so out of proportion to their subjects actual importance that I feel it doesn't do the project any credit. I have no real feeling one way or t'other about Stella Vine (in my opinion a glorified cartoonist/illustrator but what do I know?) but from everything I gather she is not one of the main movers and shakers of 21st Century Brit Art. But I could be proved very very wrong .... :-) Twizzlemas (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging other Vine articles[edit]

Charitable work by Stella Vine was recently deleted and merged with this article. The art of Stella Vine has been tagged as another possible merge since February 2012, with no discussion - I've changed the templates to point to this discussion here, and proposed the same merge for Talks and collaborations by Stella Vine. All three articles have an uneven amount of overlap and would be better combined into a single, clear article. "Talks and collaborations" seems particularly thin, as it appears to be including every possible press interview Vine has given. ("In the same month, Vine told The Guardian that she would spend Christmas Day 2008 with a run around the Serpentine, or a walk in Hyde Park or across London town with her son's bullmastiff dog and a small haversack of whisky and coffee.") I've put a fourth article, Charles Thomson, Stella Vine, and the Stuckists up for deletion, suggesting it be merged with Vine and Thomson's articles. --McGeddon (talk) 08:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully with several of the content forks being nominated at AfD there should be wider interest in this issue at last. It is a no-brainer in my view, the synthesised and over-detailed content fork articles, The art of Stella Vine and Talks and collaborations by Stella Vine should be selectively merged. Charitable work by Stella Vine has already gone through the AfD process and been merged back into the main article. There is a strong case for taking a closer look at the Stella Vine article itself now a number of years have elapsed since the height of her fame. I can possibly understand the enthusiasm of the original authors, because the article was written close to the height of her notoriety when objectivity was more difficult. Sionk (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any disagreement, I've gone ahead and started by merging The art of Stella Vine into this article, as well as trimming some of the trivia and less-significant-seeming quotes from critics and Vine herself. --McGeddon (talk) 10:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job with the merging and pruning, it is becoming easier to read. I may add back some of the section sub-headings and reorganise things a little bit. The 'Saatchi effect' in particular seems to be a major subject focused on by the press above anything else. The difficulty lies in disentangling this from the counter-claims and point scoring by the Stuckists! Sionk (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at merging Talks and collaborations by Stella Vine, but it seemed to be an indiscriminate list of occasions where Vine talked at an event or gave an interview to the press. The only significant paragraphs seemed to be the Eden Project work, and her design work for Top Shop, but both of these are already mentioned here. I've redirected the article. --McGeddon (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stella Vine[edit]

Template:Stella Vine has been nominated for deletion. Sionk (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest tag[edit]

Sorry about that, I meant to put a link back to the AfD where I mentioned it, but added the template with a widget and forgot to.

User:Madeofstars spent about a year writing this and other Stella Vine articles, and crowbarring mentions of Vine into tenuously-connected pages - this talk page list from 2009 shows that Madeofstars has shown a strong emotional bias towards Vine and against her detractors, the user briefly self-identified as "a big fan" of Vine, and from other user-talk threads seems to have been personally present at several of Vine's shows, and has been acting as an email go-between to get Wikipedia's permission to use images. Assuming good faith and concluding this is just a Vine superfan who's taken amateur video footage of her shows and wants to fight Vine's corner at Wikipedia, it is potentially close to a "personal connection to a topic or person" and "people with whom you could reasonably be said to have an antagonistic relationship in real life" WP:COS, and we should look at this whole article - and any which we merge into it - on that basis. --McGeddon (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious the original author was heavily biased in favour of Vine, but then that is often the case with new articles about celebs, musicians etc. It's an interesting observation that 'Madeofstars' equals 'Stellar' - presumably you are good at crosswords! I've no great opposition to you adding back the COI tag because, clearly, the article(s) need a lot of editing and clean up to make them encyclopedic. Sionk (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not wish to talk off-topic, but how this individual can qualify as an artist is beyond me. Most junior school students could equal or surpass her "talents". Having said this, there is an element of interesting expressionism in her work.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Stella Vine. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stella Vine. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stella_Vine&oldid=1218553449"