821:
don't really need a giant friggin' portrait of
Beethoven to represent the musical aspect of the arts: a simple line of music notes would be more than enough, and would be easier to fit into the layout in a non-obtrusive way. We should also avoid redundancies: we have the image of the dancers both near the top of the page and near the bottom (it's also poorly-alligned near the bottom), when we probably only need it near the bottom, in our signature template, especially since there's already an image depicting "dance" very near the top of the page; nor are two illustrations of comics, and two illustrations of literature, really necessaary (if you're going to include an extra one left-hand column, why not balance things out better and take a load off the page by removing one from the right-hand column?). But, as I said, the layout has potential.
302:
structure these in a consistant manner. In addition, there are some issues that might be best addressed here (i.e. an issue I have still yet to resolve in terms of theatre categories: should theatre be classified by country or by culture? This also affects the naming of the category ("Theatre in Italy" vs. "Italian theatre")). This is certainly a decision that would apply to all arts categories. Another issue arises with the use of
British vs. English and then further what about Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish? What about artists, etc. under colonial rule? (i.e. Indians under British rule? classified as British, Indian or both?) Note, however, that I have noted and appreciated your sarcasm. :-) Cheers!
1732:
812:, in fact, scare off some users in practice, as it makes it significantly more troublesome to figure out where one has to edit in order to make changes occur on the page, such as the changes required to add oneself to the list of participants. I, for example, had to make 6 or 7 attempts in order to edit the right part of the page to tone down the glaring yellow color to a more reasonable and muted hue (though it was subsequently reverted for some reason..).
31:
334:", although the term is a bit problematic as in the classical sense it would mean grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy. And of course you could argue the case for poetry being one of the "performing arts". This scheme hasn't actually been applied to the categories yet – I'll wait for some feedback from the project as to whether everything's in the right place before I go ahead with the changes.
1613:, which seems to offer guidance, or at least a starting point for discussion. I found this guidance "Capitalize the first letter of places (America, the West), nationalities (Native Americans, Europeans) and art movements (Cubism) except when used as an adjective (The painting is cubist in style)." from Art History Writing Guidelines, Colorado State University, a pdf converted to html by google in
554:: it seems to me that there are plenty of fans to keep these projects in the pink of health, and they neither need help like Theatre or Visual arts nor can they help us, as a big project like Music potentially could with related aspects of the arts. Perhaps I'm wrong, but do those pop culture topics really need what Project Arts is intended to offer as much as ones of the kind already on the list?
1473:
Mathematics and
Science) that would otherwise be totally unrepresented in this category – not exactly a point that can be made for "ethnicity". (I would also approve of Economics and Religion being added for the same reason.) As we embark on our own categorisation saga, I hope we don't fall into the same trap of pedantry. Cheers to everyone for their spirited opposition so far.
839:
my intent only to "jazz up" this page and give it a bit of flair. I'm completely open to any suggestions as to how to make this page more presentable. Of course, any project member is encouraged to make any changes they wish! So, go at it. I'll take a look at it tomorrow and see what can be removed to let the "text breathe". Cheers!
400:
576:
when we don't have to include "WikiProject Harry Potter" or "WikiProject Middle-earth" just to list "Novels" here, nor "WikiProject The
Beatles" to list "Music" and "Musicians" here? That level of detail is unnecessary, as it should be covered on WikiProject Television, Music, Film, etc. instead, if anywhere. -
1597:. A proposal just needs to be written up on the naming conventions talk page, I can't see a problem with adopting it. We might also tackle the issue of disambiguation terms we'd prefer to use, for example artist or painter, work of art, painting or artwork, that sort of thing, for when titles clash, as in
1558:
The general rule for naming here is to only capitalize if it is a proper name. Of course, are these proper names, ah, there's the rub. I would go with only capitalizing the first name. Though certainly with one word terms like
Expressionism, Impressionism, Dadism, etc., the term should be capitalized
1472:
I must say that I think proposals like the one to remove Arts and
Philosophy from this category seem bent on imposing an impossibly rigid structure on Knowledge (XXG), with no hope for flexibility. Arts and Philosophy deserve to be there simply because they are activities of the human mind (just like
873:
We have made some progress in developing an appropriate ‘project style’ based on
Knowledge (XXG) policies, taking into account that we are using many terms and references in languages other than English. Categorization is disorganized and proliferated, perhaps it always will be on Knowledge (XXG)? It
838:
Ahhh, the art critics have appeared! Thank you for your critique. It should be pointed out that I'm not really a designer, i'm a thespian who has taken a few design courses. Basically, this design is the design I've used for the two theatre wikiprojects I've created as well as my own userpage. It was
824:
It will also probably look better when we don't have a cheesy
Hallmark-esque quotation like "Art is the signature of civilizations." as our motto. :) Or lies like "Art means to dare — and to have been right." (Though I am, and long have been, fond of the "Art is useless" point. Wilde will be spared.)
815:
Remember that one of the key components of all fields of art is the ability to balance sound and silence, positive and negative: this page will look a lot healthier and more aesthetically pleasing when it's less cluttered and has a bit more subtlety and moderation in its presentation. There is a very
249:
The only new suggestion I have to add is that we perhaps formulate a sort of standard "Come and join the Arts Portal!" message and paste it on all of the related project/portal talk pages. Granted, some of them are a bit dead, but surely loads of people who joined and then forgot all about them still
239:
Yes, yes, absolutely yes to all of the above. I must confess that other than an arts COTW (a long way down the line from now, you're right) and looking after the portal I had only the haziest idea of how this project could actually improve individual articles, but your category suggestion sounds like
1692:
etc. That's another thing we'll have to come to a consensus about for this policy proposal of ours. Neo-Plasticism and Neo-Impressionism are considerably less familiar or important developments for the other two, so are hyphens dropped for periods in the art historical mainstream? Neoclassicism with
922:
To properly label art-related articles, this includes not only categorizing them correctly but given them proper stub tags, cleanup tags (a cleanup section for arts articles should probably be located here), no referecnes tags, or even deleting them if they're not found to be encyclopedic. Certainly
623:
We have been increasing our activity from the end of last year and have recruited a number of new members. We are progressing through
Wikipedias diet of article on Novel (of whatever level of elitism) and striving for increased quality and consistency. The consistency is more difficult to acheive as
216:
Two more thoughts. Perhaps we might send some spies over to WikiProject
Science and find out what they're doing to create attention. We also might consider an arts related assessment of arts coverage as a whole. Taken it piece by piece and looking at how the arts of covered. Of course we need people
705:
Better looking apart from the colours - please, please go for something more subtle. We do not want to put people off before they join. Also I suspect once underway fully the layout will need to change again to be more functinal. At present this is beginning to take on the sharacter of a Portal. ::
301:
As I see it, certain categories can be applied to every art category, such as "Theatre by country", "Dance by country", "Visual arts by country", "Literature by country" and so forth. The same could go for categorizing artistic movements, artists, etc. The purpose of the categorization would be to
184:
One project this group might consider should be sorting out arts related catagories. Certainly working on a general arrangement of them and then working downwards. Being that they are so related, perhaps creating a model category for arts related fields and then working to bring other arts related
1744:
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets
732:
to be changed – and I suppose Ganymead's (IMO marvellous) in-house style is something you either love or hate – let's at least keep it looking distinctive. Perhaps we should be taking our cue from some of the more aesthetically successful userpages. I see no reason why ours should look like every
575:
I don't see any need to add series-specific projects here. I was suggesting that we add WikiProject Film and WikiProject Television, not that we add WikiProject Star Wars or WikiProject Doctor Who or anything of the sort; why would we have to include those just to include "Film" and "Television",
180:
Since we encompass such a large area, I think trying to work on individual articles might be difficult. Perhaps the purpose could be to enhance co-operation between projects and portals, certainly maintenance of all arts related portals, and perhaps an arts article collaboration (only if there is
131:
shows no signs of life I thought setting this up might be a good idea. I was also disappointed with the lack of support for some articles in COTW and AID which I thought might benefit from the attention of an arts project. As far as I can see, nobody's maintaining the portal regularly, other than
820:
to breathe. Rather than shoving a bunch of huge (albeit very well-chosen) images down our readers' throats, some tasteful, selective placements at carefully-chosen and well-balanced intervals along the page will ultimately be more effective, compelling, and inviting to new users. As examples, we
1433:
Invalid argument, as the Humanities is not at the top level either. I will continue to support removing "Art" (and "Philosophy") from the Top 10, as its clearly an aspect of culture. If we include "Art" at the top level, we'll also have to include every other major sub-category of culture, like
1405:
is not a well defined category. It's a mixture of social science items, arts and arts institutions, sport, philosophy, religion etc. even housing, humor and travel! It would be better to exclude the arts (which are reasonably well-defined) and stick to a proper anthropological/social science
914:
As I have stated above, I think that one of the major goals of this WikiProject should be a top-down organization of arts related categories. Once this has been completed, there will still need to be reguilar maintenance of categories as articles are added. The goals of this should be:
461:
Go ahead and re-word it as you wish. I didn't create this as a template as I don't see it being used very much. Certainly once the project gets off the ground we may consider making this a template, but as it stands I think just inserting the code will work just as well.
1651:", as sharply delineated a period as you can get, in lower case. The Art Manual of Style page asks, "Which dictionary ? What to do when dictionaries do not agree with one another?" I would say the Oxford Dictionary of Art, because it's the most consistent of the ones on
269:
So, how should categorization go? Has a categorization scheme already been invented by historians or sociologists to categorize the arts and artistic endeavor? I'm going to search for one, but if anyone knows of a book or web site that discusses such a scheme, let us
1110:
is simply wrong. Naming conventions only allow articles like "the" to be used if the name of the category is a specific title. Certainly, both "arts" and "the arts" refers to the same exact thing, the article doesn't add anything in this context. As for
176:
First I think we need to redo the Project page. I jazzed up the page for WikiProject Theatre, just to make it more visually appealing; we're artists aren't we? In addition, we need to have a scope and mission statement as well as ways to help the
1080:, which has subcategories for African, Asian and Western art. This doesn't exactly solve the thorny question of nationality over culture over geographical location, but at least it circumvents it until you're well into the sub-subcategories.
1238:
Hello Sparkit, and welcome. Thankyou for diving into this issue and bringing out attention to the CfD page. I've been away performing so I haven't been keeping up. It appears, so far, that consensus here is to move everything to
673:
I threw together a new layout for the mainpage. Now, it looks much better, methinks. Certainly not as sterile as it was. If anyone thinks the yellow is too bright, feel free to change the colours or let me know and I'll do it.
486:
Why are television-, film- and radio-related WikiProjects currently excluded from this list? They're no more or less "artistic" than sculpture, comics, or music. Also, what about other, non-theatrical performing arts, like
1115:, while "art" is the commonly used term for visual arts, for our purposes being specific is the most useful thing. Of course, if we were to do away with that category, it would mean the renaming of a number of categories.
1421:
Further point. I would argue for the Arts as one of the three basic (traditional) categories alongside the Humanities (including history, geography, philosophy, languages etc.) and the Sciences (including technology). -
1136:
Ah, I see your point about the unnecessary definite article, Ganymead – I was thinking only in terms of expediency, but you're right, "Arts" is preferable to "The arts". I also want to call everyone's attention to
750:
I agree, as long as the design isn't too esoteric. We don't want to alienate people with an élitist design that's hard to use. But I definitely like what's going on now with the design. Good work, Ganymead!
1614:
1454:
are fundamental because they represent creative aspirations. If you reduce them to a sub-category of culture, you treat them as an aspect of human behaviour. Perhaps that is what you mean when you say that
1522:. It is a title so it should be Abstract Expressionism, which is how it's usually put, as far as I can see. There needs to be a standardisation of capitalisation. I propose the article should be moved to
881:
Lastly I hope members here respect the work done by the individual projects and do not try to impose solutions on them. Advice will be much appreciated, but not peremptory editing! Best regards to all. -
92:
Ok, now that we've signed up, what can we do to start fostering a relationship between the all the arts on Knowledge (XXG)? What can we do to improve articles? Should we all introduce ourselves first?
1205:
I have voted on the Category:Arts and Category:Fine arts to suspend the voting until this project can make a proposal. Merging Category:Visual arts with Category:Art, IMO, is ummmmmmm uninformed.
624:
Novels come in all shapes and styles and articles that pre-exist are more difficult to bring to consistency. Anyway all the best. I have joined up as a contact between these projects. ::
244:
Portal:Science will look impressive. In fact, the whole idea of this project as I envisaged it was of stealing all of the Science project's best ideas, so I'm glad you caught on to that!
1610:
192:
Just some ideas in stream-of-conciousness order. On the re-design of the project page, I have very little time now, but I may be able to tackle it shortly and redesign it if you like.
1526:(which I've just discovered is a redirect) and the article text changed likewise. There are a lot of pages linked to it. Is there an easy way to change all these links to a new page?
1536:
I don't know where all capitalization of art movements is discussed, but I've found no consistency amongst resources such as dictionaries and encyclopedias. Some research is here,
1643:
I would be in favour of art movements being capitalised, because in lower case terms like romantic, mannerism etc. might not immediately be recognisable as art terms. I found the
816:
thin line between a beautiful art gallery and a bloated mound of shinies; we should strongly resist the urge to bloat this page with shiny images, cutting off all room for the
942:
648:
1366:
1221:
892:
Welcome! We're glad to have your input here. One of the things I'd like to see this porject accomplish is a cleanup of arts-related categories. See below. Again, welcome!
330:. I put theatre, music etc. under "Performing arts" and architecture, painting etc. under "Visual arts" (no surpises there). Literature and poetry I decided to class as "
1589:
Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized (for example: John Wayne and
1583:
Looking through the naming conventions, I think there's a case to be made for capitalisation of all words bar those that are not conjunctions. Album titles do so and
1329:
sculpture) a few minutes ago but clearly there needs to be a voting process in place to decide which FAs/FPs appear on the Portal page. Another huge problem is that
547:
866:
Opera has also been an active area during the past few months. We have a long way to go before we can begin to rival the coverage of the main print resource (the
919:
To better organize all arts related categories. Not only to aid those working on the categories but to make these categories easier for users of Knowledge (XXG).
1043:
rather than the Novels project's chart) as a possible blueprint for the eventual arrangement of the categories, and probably the first thing you notice is how "
166:
79:
71:
66:
945:
detailing the categories, including those that have yet to be created. This could be helpful, certainly for the upper eschelons of the arts categories.
804:: it has a lot of potential, at the least. But it would be hard to dispute descriptions like "garish" or "gaudy" at this point; the bright pastel colors
971:
This is all just a suggestion. Should interest exist, I'll whip up a project subpage to work on this. As for me, it's 4:30 AM and I need sleep. Cheers!
424:
Such a pretty little tag, I'm considering rewording it as almost a sort of party invitation – I've never seen that done before. Perhaps with the header
1559:
to follow naming conventions. This is a good subject to bring up...certainly once we reach a decision we should consider submitting a policy proposal.
647:
Welcome! We're certainly glad to have a representative of WikiProject Novels! I just glanced at the project and I'm particularly impressed with the
1584:
1314:
870:), however in the long term Knowledge (XXG) is better suited to developing an up-to-date performance history than a conventional encylopedia.
1693:
a hyphen would look very strange to me, although Postimpressionism without one looks rather odd as well. As the latter term was invented by
361:
I just did a few calculations. Of Featured articles, arts-related articles comprise roughly 20%, while they comprise 19% of Good articles.
1139:
128:
1076:
I would argue that the neatest way of resolving this would be for every subdivision of the arts to have a "by region" category, as with
543:
433:
418:, an effort to create a collaboration between all arts projects and artistically-minded Wikipedians in order to improve arts coverage.
1379:
call the whole project's attention to – this would change the whole architecture of Knowledge (XXG), and I don't think in our favour.
551:
47:
17:
948:
One of the first things that really needs attention is the fact that we have three major category headings for this area. They are:
522:
1731:
169:. Well, I just got back from a walk and while walking I thought about some things this Project might work on. Here are some ideas:
765:
1706:
1482:
1388:
1350:
1295:
1180:
1089:
742:
602:
563:
449:
343:
259:
162:
145:
1697:, I would suggest that the standard be whichever form he used, if anyone has access to anything written by him on the subject.
938:
617:
293:
103:
1322:
1171:
We've made categorisation our main priority for this project, so I felt the need to draw your attention to these proposals.
860:
492:
488:
964:
about naming. I think having three categories completely confuses the issue. My suggestion would be to combine these under
867:
539:
415:
1652:
1537:
157:
Greetings! Well, I'm a theatre person and spend much of time working on articles relating to it. I also help maintain
1375:! Can anyone think of an argument for the Arts being more than a subdivision of Culture? Again, something I really
930:
Once categories begin to be more organized, we can better get an idea of what is missing and what areas need work.
38:
1672:
One thing that struck me about that list is the rather arbitrary use of hyphens: the Oxford Dictionary of Art has
1040:
505:
I'm of the opinion all of those should be included. I didn't even consider Magic, but it certainly does qualify.
1745:
will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
1499:
It's been suggested at the above section that the link to Arts at the top of the main page be removed also.
1077:
1036:
875:
327:
1523:
1519:
1023:
1782:
1244:
1165:
716:
713:
634:
631:
429:
1372:
1155:
1019:
759:
1786:
1709:
1626:
1570:
1549:
1530:
1508:
1485:
1463:
1438:
1426:
1414:
1391:
1353:
1298:
1278:
1258:
1233:
1214:
1198:
1183:
1126:
997:
982:
903:
886:
850:
829:
791:
775:
745:
723:
700:
685:
662:
641:
605:
580:
566:
529:
516:
499:
473:
452:
393:
372:
346:
313:
262:
228:
203:
148:
120:
1647:
style guide rather contradictory: "sharply delimited period titles are capitalized", but they put "
1681:
1567:
1275:
1255:
1123:
979:
900:
847:
788:
682:
659:
513:
470:
390:
369:
310:
225:
200:
117:
100:
1494:
Talk:Main Page#Proposed change to the top of the page subject list ("Culture" to replace "Arts")
428:... but before I go ahead with that I wonder whether, for brevity's sake, this should be made a
1689:
1677:
1546:
1230:
1211:
1107:
1015:
949:
926:
To search out articles that need to be categorized and "corral" them in the proper categories.
1338:
1778:
1622:
1504:
1398:
1194:
993:
707:
696:
625:
133:
1748:
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
771:
281:
753:
276:
1518:
I've seen this discussed somewhere, but now I can't find it again. The case in point is
1751:• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
1685:
1602:
1493:
1460:
1423:
1411:
883:
158:
1673:
1560:
1527:
1318:
1268:
1248:
1240:
1148:
1116:
1103:
1007:
972:
965:
953:
893:
840:
808:
a bit off-putting. Also a serious issue is that the use of tables on pages like this
781:
675:
652:
506:
463:
383:
362:
303:
218:
193:
110:
93:
1680:(the latter is a redirect to a redirect on Knowledge (XXG), eventually ending up at
1648:
1606:
1541:
1435:
1225:
1206:
1159:
1112:
1011:
957:
826:
577:
526:
496:
331:
1618:
1500:
1334:
1326:
1310:
1190:
989:
923:
this will also help to locate articles needing to be merged and renamed as well.
874:
might be helpful if the Arts Project produced some guidelines. I see there is a
692:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1313:
didn't have a featured article or picture ready to feature! I knocked together
780:
Thanks for the compliments. Feel free to tweak the design if y'all would like.
1330:
1763:• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
1754:• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
1741:
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
1705:
1694:
1481:
1387:
1349:
1294:
1179:
1088:
741:
601:
562:
448:
342:
258:
144:
1698:
1598:
1474:
1380:
1342:
1287:
1172:
1151:(Currently most votes are in favour of deleting! Don't let them do this!)
1081:
734:
594:
555:
441:
335:
251:
137:
1773:
1406:
definition of culture, in my opinion. But then another of the top 10 is
326:
Tony, I had a bash at what you might call a "categorization scheme" on
1143:, as suggestions have been made on that page in the past few days to:
1769:
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
1010:
can clearly go because this talk page is the only page on it. As for
961:
240:
a good place to start – an orderly list of categories on the portal
1757:• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
1730:
1333:, linked to on hundreds of pages, still misleadingly redirects to
1760:• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
399:
217:
in all the arts disciplines to really be able to do this well.
25:
1220:
FWIW, there are some ideas for Visual arts categorization at
440:
above the invitation won't reflect very well on the project.
398:
1611:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style
968:
and get rid of the other categories. Anyway, I digress...
651:. This is something we may have to steal for this project.
691:
I'm damning with faint praise, but I can live with it. :)
825:
But I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder. :f -
1450:
are not there either, but that's not really the point.
1106:
and merging everything there. As I see it, the name of
426:==An Invitation to all members of this Project/Portal==
1367:
Knowledge (XXG):Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 4
1222:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject_Visual_arts/Art_categories
521:Yeah. They're all currently listed under "Arts" in
960:. There was a discussion towards the end of 2004
1337:– amending all those links might be a job for a
988:I think there should be one top level category.
1587:has its own rules, and the page itself directs
1371:There's a proposal to remove the Arts from the
1766:The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014
1727:Leaflet for Wikiproject Arts at Wikimania 2014
438:this template is being considered for deletion
1006:Regarding the three major category headings,
538:Dance was duly added and I'll do Magic next.
8:
1026:from C:Art before we arrive at that hurdle).
1022:(although we need to move irrelevances like
542:I'm willing to add, but I don't know about
1655:with its almost universal capitalisation.
1018:that would make it redundant, but rather
878:page and I may make some comments there.
432:, or whether that would fall foul of the
1041:its corresponding page on Portal:Science
1140:Knowledge (XXG):Categories for deletion
800:I don't think the current design looks
593:Oh, that's perfectly fine by me, then!
129:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Visual arts
1323:Portal:Arts/Featured picture/May, 2006
1315:Portal:Arts/Featured article/May, 2006
728:I think the redesign has flair! If it
434:Knowledge (XXG):Templates for deletion
250:have those pages on their watchlists.
127:I mostly work on art articles, and as
87:
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1410:! It's really not very impressive. -
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Arts
7:
523:Knowledge (XXG):List of WikiProjects
109:BTW, who is maintaining the portal?
1459:is "clearly an aspect of culture"?
1434:religion, fashion and ethnicity. -
1397:I have opposed it. Judging by the
618:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Novels
136:occasionally changing the format.
24:
1247:. Shall we conduct a straw poll?
861:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Opera
181:enough interest in this Project).
1704:
1480:
1386:
1348:
1293:
1178:
1087:
740:
600:
561:
447:
341:
257:
143:
29:
167:WikiProject Elizabethan theatre
1189:Okay, I've voted accordingly.
1:
1224:if anyone wants to use them.
868:New Grove Dictionary of Opera
185:categories in line with that.
1712:P.S.– I'd love to read this
1362:change being proposed on CfD
88:Let's get this party started
1538:User:Sparkit/capitalization
1309:This morning (May the 1st)
414:Announcing the creation of
1802:
1714:John Wayne and Art Nouveau
1102:Ok, I would argue keeping
998:22:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
983:08:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
904:08:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
887:18:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
851:08:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
830:22:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
792:18:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
776:18:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
746:18:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
724:08:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
701:21:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
686:18:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
663:20:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
642:08:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
606:19:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
581:19:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
567:19:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
530:18:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
517:18:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
500:18:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
474:16:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
453:16:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
436:squad. Having the message
394:19:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
373:01:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
347:18:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
314:16:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
294:15:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
263:16:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
229:23:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
204:23:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
149:22:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
121:22:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
104:22:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
1787:09:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
1609:. I've found this page
1305:Problems with the Portal
733:other WikiProject page.
382:I just whipped this up!
357:Arts-related percentages
1710:21:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
1627:16:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
1571:15:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
1550:14:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
1531:09:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
1509:23:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
1486:23:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
1464:22:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
1439:22:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
1427:12:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
1415:22:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
1392:21:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
1354:11:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
1299:22:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
1279:15:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
1259:15:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
1234:00:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
1215:23:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
1199:22:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
1184:21:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
1127:16:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
1735:
1524:Abstract Expressionism
1520:Abstract expressionism
1078:Category:Art by region
1037:Portal:Arts/Categories
1024:Anarchism and the arts
910:Categorization project
876:Portal:Arts/Categories
649:categorization project
403:
328:Portal:Arts/Categories
1734:
1039:(which I've based on
1035:I've been working on
402:
290:(look what I can do!)
42:of past discussions.
1156:Category:Visual arts
1020:Category:Visual arts
378:Tag for WikiProjects
1067:" – very confusing.
994:The wikipedian meme
697:The wikipedian meme
163:WikiProject Theatre
1736:
1682:Post-Impressionism
1514:Names of movements
1245:Category:Fine arts
1166:Category:Fine arts
1047:" is followed by "
939:WikiProject Novels
934:Accomplishing this
404:
1702:
1690:Neo-Impressionism
1678:Postimpressionism
1625:
1596:
1507:
1478:
1384:
1346:
1291:
1197:
1176:
1108:Category:The arts
1085:
1016:Category:The arts
996:
950:Category:The arts
941:has an ingenious
738:
699:
598:
559:
445:
339:
255:
141:
85:
84:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1793:
1774:Project leaflets
1708:
1700:
1621:
1594:
1503:
1484:
1476:
1399:Category:Culture
1390:
1382:
1352:
1344:
1297:
1289:
1193:
1182:
1174:
1091:
1083:
992:
774:
768:
762:
756:
744:
736:
721:
710:
695:
639:
628:
604:
596:
565:
557:
451:
443:
416:WikiProject Arts
408:WikiProject Arts
345:
337:
292:
291:
287:
286:(blah blah blah)
284:
279:
261:
253:
147:
139:
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1801:
1800:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1729:
1516:
1497:
1364:
1321:in Dublin) and
1307:
1267:with proposal.
1045:Performing arts
936:
912:
864:
859:Greetings from
770:
764:
758:
752:
720:
717:
708:
671:
638:
635:
626:
621:
616:Greetings from
484:
421:
410:
380:
359:
289:
288:
285:
280:
275:
90:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1799:
1797:
1777:
1771:
1770:
1768:
1767:
1765:
1764:
1728:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1686:Neo-Plasticism
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1653:Sparkit's list
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1603:Richard Wilson
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1553:
1552:
1515:
1512:
1496:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1442:
1441:
1430:
1429:
1418:
1417:
1363:
1357:
1306:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1281:
1218:
1217:
1202:
1201:
1169:
1168:
1162:
1152:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1065:by nationality
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1001:
1000:
935:
932:
928:
927:
924:
920:
911:
908:
907:
906:
863:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
833:
832:
822:
813:
797:
796:
795:
794:
778:
748:
718:
703:
670:
667:
666:
665:
636:
620:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
586:
585:
584:
583:
570:
569:
535:
534:
533:
532:
483:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
456:
455:
419:
413:
406:
397:
379:
376:
358:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
319:
318:
317:
316:
272:
271:
266:
265:
246:
245:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
209:
208:
207:
206:
187:
186:
182:
178:
173:
172:
171:
170:
161:and I created
159:Portal:Theatre
152:
151:
124:
123:
89:
86:
83:
82:
77:
74:
69:
64:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1798:
1789:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1775:
1761:
1758:
1755:
1752:
1749:
1746:
1742:
1739:
1733:
1726:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1696:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1675:
1674:Neoclassicism
1671:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1595:(my emphasis)
1593:
1592:
1586:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1572:
1569:
1565:
1563:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1551:
1548:
1545:
1539:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1513:
1511:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1471:
1470:
1465:
1462:
1458:
1453:
1449:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1440:
1437:
1432:
1431:
1428:
1425:
1420:
1419:
1416:
1413:
1409:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1378:
1374:
1369:
1368:
1361:
1358:
1356:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1319:Abbey Theatre
1316:
1312:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1285:
1282:
1280:
1277:
1273:
1271:
1266:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1257:
1253:
1251:
1246:
1242:
1241:Category:Arts
1236:
1235:
1232:
1229:
1223:
1216:
1213:
1210:
1204:
1203:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1167:
1163:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1150:
1149:Category:Arts
1146:
1145:
1144:
1142:
1141:
1128:
1125:
1121:
1119:
1114:
1109:
1105:
1104:Category:Arts
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1090:
1086:
1079:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1008:Category:Arts
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
999:
995:
991:
987:
986:
985:
984:
981:
977:
975:
969:
967:
966:Category:Arts
963:
959:
955:
954:Category:Arts
951:
946:
944:
940:
933:
931:
925:
921:
918:
917:
916:
909:
905:
902:
898:
896:
891:
890:
889:
888:
885:
879:
877:
871:
869:
862:
858:
852:
849:
845:
843:
837:
836:
835:
834:
831:
828:
823:
819:
814:
811:
807:
803:
799:
798:
793:
790:
786:
784:
779:
777:
773:
767:
761:
755:
749:
747:
743:
739:
731:
727:
726:
725:
722:
714:
711:
704:
702:
698:
694:
690:
689:
688:
687:
684:
680:
678:
668:
664:
661:
657:
655:
650:
646:
645:
644:
643:
640:
632:
629:
619:
615:
607:
603:
599:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
582:
579:
574:
573:
572:
571:
568:
564:
560:
553:
549:
545:
541:
537:
536:
531:
528:
524:
520:
519:
518:
515:
511:
509:
504:
503:
502:
501:
498:
494:
490:
481:
475:
472:
468:
466:
460:
459:
458:
457:
454:
450:
446:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
422:
420:
417:
412:
409:
401:
396:
395:
392:
388:
386:
377:
375:
374:
371:
367:
365:
356:
348:
344:
340:
333:
329:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
315:
312:
308:
306:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
283:
278:
268:
267:
264:
260:
256:
248:
247:
243:
238:
237:
230:
227:
223:
221:
215:
214:
213:
212:
211:
210:
205:
202:
198:
196:
191:
190:
189:
188:
183:
179:
175:
174:
168:
164:
160:
156:
155:
154:
153:
150:
146:
142:
135:
130:
126:
125:
122:
119:
115:
113:
108:
107:
106:
105:
102:
98:
96:
81:
78:
75:
73:
70:
68:
65:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1772:
1762:
1759:
1756:
1753:
1750:
1747:
1743:
1740:
1737:
1713:
1649:quattrocento
1645:Art Bulletin
1644:
1607:David Wilkie
1590:
1588:
1561:
1547:TALK<<
1517:
1498:
1456:
1451:
1448:The Sciences
1447:
1407:
1402:
1376:
1370:
1365:
1359:
1308:
1283:
1269:
1264:
1249:
1237:
1231:TALK<<
1219:
1212:TALK<<
1170:
1160:Category:Art
1138:
1135:
1117:
1113:Category:Art
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1012:Category:Art
973:
970:
958:Category:Art
947:
937:
929:
913:
894:
880:
872:
865:
841:
817:
809:
805:
801:
782:
729:
676:
672:
653:
622:
507:
491:and perhaps
485:
464:
437:
425:
411:
407:
405:
384:
381:
363:
360:
332:Liberal arts
304:
273:
241:
219:
194:
111:
94:
91:
60:
43:
37:
1779:Adikhajuria
1684:) but also
1591:Art Nouveau
1335:Portal:Arts
1327:Henry Moore
1311:Portal:Arts
1243:and delete
1053:Visual arts
1014:, it's not
709:Kevinalewis
627:Kevinalewis
525:, anyway. -
493:stage magic
134:Cyberjunkie
36:This is an
1331:Portal:Art
1061:Literature
1049:by country
669:New layout
1695:Roger Fry
1615:this link
1568:Dialogue?
1492:See also
1461:Kleinzach
1424:Kleinzach
1412:Kleinzach
1276:Dialogue?
1256:Dialogue?
1124:Dialogue?
1057:by region
980:Dialogue?
901:Dialogue?
884:Kleinzach
848:Dialogue?
789:Dialogue?
683:Dialogue?
660:Dialogue?
552:Star Wars
514:Dialogue?
471:Dialogue?
391:Dialogue?
370:Dialogue?
311:Dialogue?
226:Dialogue?
201:Dialogue?
118:Dialogue?
101:Dialogue?
80:Archive 5
72:Archive 3
67:Archive 2
61:Archive 1
1738:Hi all,
1716:article!
1599:Guernica
1564:Ganymead
1562:*Exeunt*
1544:sparkit|
1528:Tyrenius
1452:The Arts
1272:Ganymead
1270:*Exeunt*
1252:Ganymead
1250:*Exeunt*
1228:sparkit|
1209:sparkit|
1120:Ganymead
1118:*Exeunt*
1051:"; but "
976:Ganymead
974:*Exeunt*
897:Ganymead
895:*Exeunt*
844:Ganymead
842:*Exeunt*
785:Ganymead
783:*Exeunt*
679:Ganymead
677:*Exeunt*
656:Ganymead
654:*Exeunt*
510:Ganymead
508:*Exeunt*
467:Ganymead
465:*Exeunt*
430:template
387:Ganymead
385:*Exeunt*
366:Ganymead
364:*Exeunt*
307:Ganymead
305:*Exeunt*
222:Ganymead
220:*Exeunt*
197:Ganymead
195:*Exeunt*
177:project.
114:Ganymead
112:*Exeunt*
97:Ganymead
95:*Exeunt*
1436:Silence
1403:culture
1164:Delete
1147:Delete
1059:" and "
1055:" has "
827:Silence
578:Silence
548:Digimon
527:Silence
497:Silence
39:archive
1619:Hiding
1501:Hiding
1408:people
1401:page,
1373:Top 10
1191:Hiding
1154:Merge
990:Hiding
719:(Desk)
693:Hiding
637:(Desk)
1585:Opera
1543:: -->
1542:: -->
1360:Major
1317:(the
1284:Agree
1265:Agree
1227:: -->
1226:: -->
1208:: -->
1207:: -->
1158:with
943:chart
544:Buffy
489:dance
482:Scope
270:know!
16:<
1783:talk
1676:and
1623:Talk
1605:and
1505:Talk
1377:must
1195:Talk
962:here
956:and
818:text
810:does
540:Film
242:à la
165:and
1457:Art
1339:bot
1325:(a
1063:" "
806:are
802:bad
751:--
730:has
550:or
495:? -
277:Ton
1785:)
1701:AM
1688:,
1617:.
1601:,
1566:|
1540:.
1477:AM
1383:AM
1345:AM
1341:.
1290:AM
1286:.
1274:|
1254:|
1175:AM
1122:|
1084:AM
978:|
952:,
899:|
846:|
787:|
737:AM
712::
681:|
658:|
630::
597:AM
558:AM
546:,
512:|
469:|
444:AM
389:|
368:|
338:AM
309:|
274:--
254:AM
224:|
199:|
140:AM
116:|
99:|
76:→
1781:(
1699:H
1475:H
1381:H
1343:H
1288:H
1173:H
1082:H
772:y
769:.
766:n
763:.
760:o
757:.
754:T
735:H
715:/
633:/
595:H
556:H
442:H
336:H
282:y
252:H
138:H
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
