User talk:Clubmarx/Archive 1

Art and visual art techniques

I noticed you created the subcategory Category:Visual art techniques within Category:Artistic techniques. It seems like the visual art ones are of the same calibre as artistic techniques. Also, since Music is in Category:Arts not Category:Art it seems sufficient to the musical techniques categorized as music. I'd like to merge visual art tech. and art. tech. and take out music. tech - sound OK? Clubmarx 21:57, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the note. Unfortunately I didn't understand it all. However, I am writing to ask you to please provide justification for not categorizing music as an art. Hyacinth 23:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dance, theater, etc. are in the Performing arts, which is in the category the Arts, just as music is in the performing arts. No dance techniques or acting techniques are in artistic techniques, mostly just painting techniques. Things inside and outside the category Art can have artistic merit or have 'an art to it.' But the category 'Art' is being using somewhat syonymously with the fine arts, especially painting. I'm trying to clean all this up. Clubmarx 00:40, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate efforts to clean up categories, especially since it takes a long time, but I oppose any efforts to categorize music, or any other art, outside of art. At this point I am not sure why there is both a category "Art" and "Arts". Regardless, category names should be self-explanitory (stand alone) and if "Art" is actually visual art it needs to be named such. Hyacinth 17:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Solipsist, has there been a decision made to move Category:Art into Category:Visual art or vice versa? I'm not sure what the outcome was on Category talk:Art. I have been working on cleaning up lots of these areas. There hasn't been a consensus to delete Category:Arts right? See User talk:Clubmarx for some problems I'm running into. Also, note, that Hyacinth is quoting himself above. help! Clubmarx 18:18, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

As far as I am aware no decision has been made. WP:CFD recently had a proposal to merge C:Art with C:Arts which was generally rejected, although there was a fair bit of support for changing the name of C:Arts to C:The Arts. Last time I looked, C:Art is the defacto category for most of the visual arts, and I think its heirarchy under the more general C:Arts (or C:The Arts) is about right. But there does seem to be a problem with the specific category names, so renaming C:Art and C:Visual Art might also help (though there is a slight problem that mainstream visual arts aren't necessarily so visual now they are straying into conceptual art and sound sculptures). I would suggest reopenning discussion on the two category talk pages, but it is not always easy to get people to offer an opinion. -- Solipsist 14:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image copyrights

Hi Clubmarx —

I notice you've tagged most of the images you've uploaded with {{GFDL}} or {{PD}}. However, I'm not sure that these tags apply. GFDL is only if the copyright holder of the image explicitly releases the work into GFDL, and PD is if the copyright holder either explicitly releases all copyrights or if the image has entered into the public domain, for example by being created before a certain date.

Did you take Image:Jeffrey-sachs.jpg, Image:Walter-ong.jpg, Image:Bibendumchair.jpg and Image:Eileen-gray-e1027-table.jpg? If not, and if you've no word from the copyright holders that they are releasing copyrights, these tags don't apply. You should look through Wikipedia:Image copyright tags to see which tags would be applicable (to see if an image is eligible for any of them, check Wikipedia:Image use policy). For instance, {{Promophoto}} might be applicable to the first image.

Let me know if you have any questions, thanks, — Asbestos | Talk 12:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I did talk with the PR people at the Earth Institute (sachs) and the site for the two chairs and they granted permissions to use that photo. The photo was available on their site at the time. I believe that the Ong one is correct with {{Promophoto}}. Let me know if something needs to change. Clubmarx 03:41, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'll look at this a little more in-depth when I have a moment, but for now I can say that the images which are still tagged {{GFDL}} and {{PD}} probably aren't correctly tagged. If you didn't have explicit confirmation that the owners of the copyright specifically released the image into GFDL or the Public Domain, you'll have to use another license. {{Promophoto}} I'm sure is fine for Jeffrey Sachs, and one of the fair use tags probably for the chairs (depending on what kind of permission they gave). I may not be around much in the next couple of days, but I'll take a closer look soon. All the pictures I'm sure are fine, though, it's just getting the bureaucratic tags right... — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 10:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Conceptual art

Hi, both of us have our favourite subject as art! I see your point about Stuckism and normally I probably wouldn't have put in the link, but certainly in the UK they are such a publicly recognised voice against conceptual art (they're always getting quoted in the press), I thought it would be useful to have a hotline through to their site. Otherwise it means going to the Stuckism article and then finding an external link there, if anyone wants to follow it up. I didn't want to put a wikilink in the See Also section as that is covered in the article, but if there isn't an external link, maybe it should go there as the current wikilink is from an adjective (Stuckist) not even the name of the group. However, I'm not going to get into a fight about it, and now I've given my reasons, I'll leave it to you to do what you think is best. Tyrenius 03:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello - yes, good to see someone in the art category! I too don't want to get into a fight about this, but I'd like to remove. The journalist would need to be lazy not to look into the references and other links. There's a news story link and a reference link to stuckism.com. So many articles have many links and pages start to look like dmoz, thus my tendency to trim whenevery possible. Clubmarx | Talk 06:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, misunderstanding there. My point is the general reader will have heard about this group through the press, not that journalists will be looking in wiki! I'm a little peturbed that a general point ("so many articles....") is being applied to this one, to which it doesn't apply as it doesn't have a lot of links; also that it now means the only "anti" external link is to a self-confessed humour site, while the Stuckists are nothing if not serious in their campaigns. However, although I don't agree, I will not actively oppose. Tyrenius 06:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Visual arts/Categories

Ham, I see you made the original version of this so I have a question for you. Why are Performing arts and Æsthetics(which is categorized only under philosophy) part of the visual arts categories? I already made an edit where I removed Literature. Can Performing arts and Æsthetics be removed as well? It looks like Portal:Arts/Categories already has this. Removing these would be more consistent with Arts. Thanks - Clubmarx | Talk 00:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry about that; the page is just a copy of the original version of Portal:Arts/Categories (back when it was still the Art Portal). I should have looked more closely at it before dumping the text wholesale. You're right, the performing arts and aesthetics do not belong. HAM 07:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• No problem. I thought I was missing something. :) I've removed them. Clubmarx | Talk 15:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Sorting for Visual arts

Thanks for creating this page! I need some help with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Visual_art. I'm not sure which page to put the sorting tag. I tried with Category:Art_supplies but it's not working. Do you have to manually add the item to the the visual art deletion sorting page? Clubmarx 18:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems items have to be put on the page manually at the moment. There is an idea for categories to do it automatically, but it hasn't reached that stage yet. You won't be able to put a Category that's up for deletion on it. You will have to put the page name as in {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video artists}}, except it will be "Categories for deletion". I went to the Art Supplies category page and clicked on the link to get the deletion page, but I couldn't find it. I wonder if it's been listed properly?Tyrenius 00:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks for the info. I don't know what happened with the link to the Art Supplies discussion. But I added a hard link on the category page as a workaround. Clubmarx 01:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

As items have to be added manually, it makes sense to just put on articles which someone wants to draw attention to. Tyrenius 01:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Note - "Category:Art supplies" has been merged into Category:Art materials, per CfD. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sending this out to wikiart folks everywhere,

so please don't feel picked on. Here's my thing. I've been watching list of sculptors recently and have been weeding out the entries in red on the theory that this is an index of sculptors in wikipedia. However i have been reluctant to remove artists that I know or discover to be real, wikipedia worthy people, so am trying to decide if i should just do a stub - maybe a lot of stubs - of these folks or leave them on the list [I HATE lists with too much red - check out the List of Frank Lloyd Wright works for example.

For example, i checked out one, François-Joseph Duret (1804 - 1865) and discovered that there are at least two sculptors with that name, (1732 - 1816) and (1804 - 1865)- this one is the son - and both probably could comfortably be in wikipedia. I did have a rather bad moment recently when someone DELETED my article on Connor Barrett about an hour [maybe less] after I first posted it, on the theory that he was not wikiworthy [or something] and a lot of these fairly remote (in time and place from me) artists are a lot more obscure than Barrett. So, i would like to know that i have the support of the wikipedia art history community before doing this. Drop me a line, if you wish to sit down and be counted. Life is good, Carptrash 05:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. although i do mostly American art i have contributed to lots on non-American articles including Aleijadinho, Ásmundur Sveinsson, Einar Jonsson, Gunnfrídur Jónsdóttir, Henry Moore, Ivan Meštrović, Ørnulf Bast, Rayner Hoff, and probably some others. I say this because most of the stubs I'm proposing would be Europeans.

wikEd

The wikEdlogo

Hi, I have seen that you are using the Cacycle editor extension. This program is no longer actively maintained in favor of its much more powerful successor wikEd.

wikEd has all the functionality of the old editor plus: • syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • more fixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages • convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjust the font size • and much, much more.

Switching to wikEd is easy, check the detailed installation description on its project homepage. Often it is as simple as changing every occurrence of editor.js into wikEd.js on your User:YourUsername/monobook.js page.

Cacycle 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Chagall IandTheVillage.jpg

Hello Clubmarx, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Chagall IandTheVillage.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Clubmarx/Sandbox. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 10:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Artists

Glad to see you are clearing out the category, but please note that if people are in a national painters (etc) category, the national artists category should just be deleted, not duplicated (assuming it is a sub-category of the artists, as I think all are). Thanks Johnbod 09:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think I understand what you are saying. If someone was just in 'Artists', I have moved them to 'American artists' or whatever the relevant country is. Clubmarx 22:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, but half of them are are already in Cat:Fooian painters, a sub of Fooian artists, so you are duplicating their entries in head cat & sub cat. In these cases you should just remove the artists cat, unless they were important as say sculptors or printmakers, in which case you should ideally add precise cats for this as well. Johnbod 01:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, I leave the Foo artist category if the article implies that they were many things -- Foo filmmaker, Foo painter, etc. I try to remove it when it is clear they should be in a more specific subcategory. Clubmarx 02:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, although filmmakers don't qualify as "artists" for these cats. Johnbod 02:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? 'cause Filmmakers are listed in Category:Artists by medium Clubmarx 02:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

So they are! But I don't think they should be, any more than Category:Dance occupations. If you have them, why not composers or novelists? The head cat:Artists says "This category is for artists who worked in the Visual arts". We are still untangling this Art/Arts split. Filmmakers etc are in Category:Arts occupations plus cinema cats & that's enough in my view. Johnbod 03:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Walter-ong.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Walter-ong.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

When you say you got permission, what exactly did they agree to? See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for what I mean. The requests typically need to very specific (exactly what license it is under) and cannot simply be for Wikipedia or for non-commercial use only (a little complicated but Wikipedia allows commercial forks under the GFDL). Sorry about being such a hard ass about this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked about wikipeida. they said, yeah, wikipedia is OK. Clubmarx 08:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Term paper

Thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 21:59 13 November 2007 (GMT).

categorization

Hi Clubmark -- I just reverted your category edit on Women artists; you had removed Category:Artists. See WP:CATGRS for more info, but basically, to avoid ghettoization concerns, articles that are categorized with gender, race, and sexuality subcategories also stay in the parent category, as well as getting the gender/race/sexuality category. Happy editing, Lquilter (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Good to know. thanks. Clubmarx (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Art Deco link

Dear Clubmark:

I noticed you reverted an external link in Art Deco. FWIW, I think that this might be a wrong decision. The link was to an "on line museum" and the displayed materials were NOT for sale. The materials and the commentary were worthwhile. I think you should reconsider.

p.s., this was not my link.

Respectfully, 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Stan

That user spammed over 20 pages with that site. And that user's only contributions were to add that link. WP is not a collection of links. Clubmarx (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Wiener Werkstätte Ettore Sottsass The Arts Institute at Bournemouth Not-for-profit arts organization Software design Tapiola Christopher Simmons Landscape design Sfumato Handicraft Amy Brown List of Korean ceramic artists and sculptors Multimedia artist Tyseley Robert Williams (artist) Jasmine Becket-Griffith George Maciunas Knowbotic Research The Art Institute of Seattle

Cleanup Jeff Koons Land art Banksy Merge User-centered design Design document Thai art Add Sources Applied art African art College for Creative Studies Wikify Black Arts Movement Dollhouse Ismail Fatah Al Turk Expand Bennett Graham De Stijl Transgressive art

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

List of basic drawing topics

You reverted the edit I made to this page. My edit was not vandalism: it was work for this project. Could you explain what makes the earlier version the "correct" one? You can reply here: I will watch this page. Thanks. Auntof6 (talk) 07:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I guess that is an accepted format. I just find it really hard to read. I've only done multiple columns. Also, I didn't label it vandalism. Clubmarx (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem -- I didn't mean I thought you'd labelled it vandalism, I just thought I'd mention it for the record. I use multiple columns sometimes, especially when there are indentations in a list. When the items are relatively short like a lot of these are, the dash-separated format works pretty well. If I put my changes back, will you leave them this time? Thanks. Auntof6 (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure Clubmarx (talk) 08:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rivera-the-arsenal.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rivera-the-arsenal.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Northwest School

Could you take a look at my questions at Talk:Northwest School (art)? At least one of them seems to relate to an edit of yours. - Jmabel | Talk 06:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they were my edits. All I did was categorize it a long time ago. Clubmarx (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Nepal artists

Category:Nepal artists, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Art vs. art

I've moved "Actual art" back to "Actual Art" because the latter is its name in citations. If you have some strong evidence why it should be "art" rather than "Art", fine - but provide it before renaming. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the capitalization of all the other art genre articles, which do no capitalize art. I think the pattern set by other wikipedia articles trumped that of an external source. Clubmarx (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Category:Art genres; what you say is true in general because most are merely terms applied descriptively to art, but in a few cases, the capitalisation is integral because it's actually the name of a movement (another example is Outsider Art aka Art Brut). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 07:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine

This is not a big deal, but in that Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine published audio art and audio work by performance artists and video artists, etc. - I think Category:Art genres could stand. Would you reconsider? Valueyou (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Art genres are for general types of art like landscape art, glass art, etc. The article you mention is a specific instance of something, so it is not appropriate for the category. Even the classic defining instances of a genre wouldn't be in Art genres. If the article was named Cassette art, or similar, then it would be appropriate. Clubmarx (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)