Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts

populating Category:Sleep in art

After some initial category population by myself and Johnbod, please join in. Haven't done a full search on the category:Madonna and Child in art and category:Nativity of Jesus in art pages, which likely have category-worthy pages. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm confident I've added most worthy pages but there may be a few I've missed. I couldn't add any from Category:Nativity of Jesus in art because while many show the child lying down, they do not specifically depict him as asleep. Golem08 (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Nice work Golem08, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

A hand here, please

The long-term commonsense link List of paintings by John Everett Millais has been removed from the See also section of Ophelia (painting), and after adding it back I was reverted twice by Ceoil without explanation. One more revert on my part may be described as an edit war (not by myself, it seems more of running up against a newly-formed ownership issue), so can someone else or an admin return the long-term link? Thanks. I tried on the talk page but just ran into another finger-pointing discussion from Viriditas after pinging him because I know he is interested in the topic even though we take opposite views. Lists of paintings by their artists are standard on visual arts articles, something these editors know and are ignoring (IAR is fine when done well, this isn't that). Randy Kryn (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

(will add this to the linked discussion as well) In the discussion I'd been assured that feature review editors would oppose including something like List of paintings by John Everett Millais as a See also link in Ophelia (a famous painting by John Everett Millais). I then asked for those editors to be pinged to the discussion, and this was not done. Since WP:SEEALSO clearly supports including closely associated lists (see the 'Contents' section for a direct example of an allowed list), and I really can't imagine a counter-argument (notice that none are given in the discussion other than "I don't like it" variety, which I can sometimes sympathize with but not this time) and it's been a couple days with the good faith reverter, Ceoil, not explaining 'why' he reverted after removing this long-term See also entry. He's done this before, and I've agreed not to add back the See also link into quite a few feature articles of artists that Ceoil has competently taken under his wing (resulting, I'd assume upon my own experience with adding lists to See also, in a great deal of lost readership for those lists). But when he did this to a Millais, naw, that's one artist too far, and without his giving any reason whatsoever and in compliance with WP:SEEALSO, I'll add it back for the third time but won't revert if it is reverted again so as keep out of edit war territory (no-Wikipedians land). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum

In the museum's article, Under the heading Selected works in the collection, we display 31 images. That seems like too many, and I suggest that we weed it down to 2 dozen or less. The question is, which ones are the least important/representative ones shown? Or should we just eliminate ones where the artist is represented by two or more images? Please respond on the museum article's Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Category:Caves in art

A new category containing paintings and sculptures depicting caves. Please add to it, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, has become well populated. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:History_of_Asian_art#Partial_merge_to_Asian_art_needed

There is a discussion here as to whether Asian art should continue to redirect to History of Asian art, as it has done for years, or be turned into a sort of disam page like this. Comments welcome. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Draft:The Embrace (Die Umarmung)

I've created Draft:The Embrace (Die Umarmung) and would like to expand it further. There are additional sources available, including: [1] ; [2] ; [3] ; [4] ; [5] ; [6] ; [7] ; [8] ; [9] ; [10]. I'd greatly appreciate any contributions from those interested. ~2025-41850-20 (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Several of these links have nothing to do with The Embrace (German: Die Umarmung). Some seem to refer to another painting Cardinal and Nun (The Embrace). Please repost only the relevant links. Peaceray (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Christmas quiz, sort of...

at Talk:Massacre_of_the_Innocents#Infobox_image. Please respond there. Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Guidance on public art inclusions in existing city/town/community articles

Hey everyone!

Before I reach out to WP:USCITIES to ask for consensus, I'm first trying to find out from this awesome project if there are guidelines that already exist in regards to the inclusion of public art (murals, sculptures, et al) in city, town, and small community articles. I understand that the Visual Arts Project focuses on artwork articles, but perhaps there's a few of you awesome editors who might be more in the know.

By pure coincidence, either as a reader or as an editor at Wikipedia, I've recently come across a few strongly-purposed, but experienced editors, who, at the least, seem to feel that mentioning public art in United States community articles (usually medium-sized cities and smaller) needs to be simple (it exists, nothing more) and at the most worrying, that any inclusion of public artworks are completely unwarranted and out of scope. Rarely is the removal cited to an existing WP or MOS, just vague and unhelpful "unnecessary" or "not notable" summary edits, despite WP:NOTEWORTHY.

My concern is public art matters at a local level, especially if it's reliably sourced. Under the standards of an "Arts and culture" section, minor artworks can simply be mentioned, but larger works and those of larger, historical connections or context to the community, should be expanded upon. A couple sentences or up to a small paragraph, that depending on importance and sourcing, includes such details as one would have in a conversation about art: title, medium, dimensions, artist/ownership, funding, and location. So long as the provided information is backed up by reliable sourcing, artworks not notable enough for their own pages can and should be added for context.

Various guidelines encourage contextual additions to articles. For example, background sections in history-related articles, recreation sections in articles on parks, or the exciting world of tax levies on infrastructure pages. Doing so helps to give a better overall view of the topic so long as it doesn't deviate from the focus of the page.

My thanks for any help you can provide!

OlympiaBuebird (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Whitewashing in art discussion

There is a discussion about possible bias and factual inaccuracy on the talk page of this article. ★Trekker (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Getty Center

Getty Center 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) 02:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC)