Talk:List of painters by name

Layout

for easy of reference wouldn't this be a better layout?

Cézanne, Paul, (1839-1906), French artist

Singularity 20:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Probably, but every list I've seen on Wiki is written first name first. I don't know why one is favored over the other, but apparently it is. I certainly wouldn't want to be the one to go through and reformat it. ;) --Etacar11 20:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually this makes some sense. Many well-known artists are often refered to just by their surname, so it might help people find who they are looking for. The downside, as Etacar11 says, is that it would be quite painful to convert the list. And worse, since articles are listed 'firstname surname', it would be quite painful to keep reformating new entries. -- Solipsist 12:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

14-April-2007: Two years later, the list is still first-name-first. Painters with multi/compound names would be a problem with commas, and also the Chinese names are already last-name-first (such as Wen Tong under "W"). I just added "Gerard ter Borch" (under "B"), but someone might search the page by "ter Borch" or "van Bee" for Beethoven, so the current format seems okay, for such searching. Honestly, web-browsers should show compressed scans for matching lines, but 2007 is still the age where browsers can't even scan for multiple words in a line or paragraph. In what century will a browser be able to search "Francis Key" and match "Francis Scott Key" (or match "Wolfgang Mozart" without "Amadeus")? Browsers seem pretty backward today, but remember that even multi-computer search-engines are still in their infancy, not scientifically designed, but mostly just ad-hoc, whimsical contraptions, like most software anywhere. Wiki-search is way ahead of them, so running a wiki-search for "Francis Key" will match "Francis Scott Key" and similar multi-word names. -Wikid77 13:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Rabo Karabekian?

Isn't this person entirely fictional? See Bluebeard (book); as far as I know there is no real historical person.

---

Perhaps the list under "Maine Painting" should go on a sepperate page?

Done, to List of Maine Painters. -- Infrogmation

---

Isn't it time this page broken up into separate pages by letter? BevRowe 17:44 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

---

Does anyone think that L. S. Lowry is famous enough to be put in the popular artists section of this article, as he is very famous in Britain. Or has no-one outside Britain ever heard of him? G-Man 30th apr 2003

I've given it a week and no-ones objected so I'll take that as a yes G-Man 6th may 03

The "Shortcuts to highly popular painters:" , I presume, is for the names that would be the most accessed by users. If you think Lowery has a reputation in the league of Rembrant or Cezanne, then you'd think he belongs there. However please, why can't he be in alphabetical order like everyone else on the list? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 15:22 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

And why isn't he on the main list? Certainly he should be on the main list if he deserves a spot on the short list as well. That's a bit much for me; I'm moving him from out of order on the short list to in order on the main list. -- Infrogmation 15:29 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

---

could someone knowledgable look at Zoicon5's comments on Talk:List of Maine painters? Thanks. Martin 21:00 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

I think it's rather superfluous to note that an individual on the list is a "painter". Clearly, they wouldn't belong on the list if they weren't. -- Infrogmation 17:41 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Lermontov?

I do not think that Mikhail Lermontov belongs to the list. He was a great poet but quite a mediocre painter, maybe we should exclude him?

Proposal for Complete Overhaul

The list is indeed completely chaotic. Some examples:

• Nationalities are sometimes linked to the country (e.g.: "Raphael, (1483-1520), [Italy|Italian] painter") and sometimes not (e.g.: "Leonardo da Vinci, (1452-1519), Italian painter, sculptor and inventor").
• The nationalities are not given (e.g.: "Franz Marc, (1880-1916)") , or are non-standard (e.g.: "U.S.", "USA", "American").
• Dates are sometimes not given (e.g.: "Miltos Manetas, Greek painter").
• Other professions & specialisations are mentioned (e.g.: "Abbasi, Riza, (1565 - 1635), Persian painter, miniatures and homoerotic")
• A few lines of biography are added (e.g.: "Juan Bautista Garcia (1904-1974), Corsican immigrant to Puerto Rico who later became the inspiration for the famed television show, Los Garcia")
• It's not really necesary to place "painter" behind every name, after all, this is a list of painters, one would expect the names on that list to be, indeed, painters.
• The general layout of an entry is not formalised.
• Etc.

Conclusion: this list requires a thorough cleanup.

Addendum: Painters needs it's own subcategory in a new subcategory "Artists" in "Culture - Art"

Proposal: complete overhaul of the article (and several others), a few possibilities:

1. Seperate lists are made:

   • [List_Of_Painters]. (disambiguation page to all the following lists):

   • [List_Of_Painters_By_Name]. (the current [List_Of_Painters])
   • [List_Of_Painters_By_Country]. (disambiguation page to all [List_Of_<InsertNationality>_Painters])
   • [List_Of_Painters_By_Movement] (e.g.: Impressionist Painters, Renaissance Painters, etc.).
   • [List_Of_Painters_By_Century] (self-evident).

2. The lists are ordered as following:

• For the 'By_Name', Entries are given as followed: Name, Surname, (year of Birth-year of Death), e.g.: ("Franz Marc (1880-1946)"), this way, the names can be copied and pasted in all other lists. Nationalities are not really necessary(?).
• The lists are divided into categories (letters, countries, movements, centuries) and every category is sorted alphabetically.

• (Possible exception for 'By_Century': sorting by year or birth).

As for the name question: seeing as any webpage can be searched, it doesn't seem me as necessary to deviate from the standard "Name-Surname" form and place the surname first. Besides, most painters have their own seperate article.

Please comment or leave a message on my talk page.

Hraban 14:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks damn fine to me - David Gerard 14:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Cleanup

Cleanup fase I now complete:

• All entries have been standardised (to "Name Surname (Year of birth, Year of death)").
• As much as possible, dates have been added to the entries.

Cleanup fase II can now begin:

• All entries should be checked for correctness (spelling, correct dates).
• Links to articles should be checked (as well as seeing if there is perhaps an article, but with another title).

This leaves the case of determining "who should be on the list".

Proposal:

1. The list should mention all artists who are on the sibling lists (by century, by movement, by style(?), by country), or rather: every artist should be on every other list (idealy).
2. Therefore, we require a set of criteria to determine whether an artist is noteworthy enough to

be on the lists.

Criteria I propose:

1. Influence (has the artist (or his work) influenced other artists or certain styles?)
2. Value (is the artist an important painter for a certain movement/style/time/country/culture?)

Or, simpler:

1. Would the artist get an article on wikipedia that would not be deleted?

Advice on the criteria would be more than welcome.

Hraban 12:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Guidelines for Inclusion

I have going through the list and nominating linked articles for deletion. I don't know if that is appropriate or not. There must be guidelines for inclusion on this list, or the millions of people who adequately and deftly weild paintbrushes will need entries. I suggest the guidlines for inclusion be: 1. A history of critical response in recognized journals and periodicals. 2.A consistent exhibition record in public galleries or records of participation with public galleries and foundations. 3. Evidence of a significant contribution to the discipline of painting in other capacities. I have done a cursory perusal of the list, and there are many that need to be deleted for the above reasons. -- Thamiel 17:15 6 Nov 2006

16-April-2007: I estimate the list has only about 1,800 painters, so more could be added. Many notable painters are not yet in English Wikipedia, but those painters appear in foreign WPs. -Wikid77 13:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Allow 3000? painters

16-April-2007: I estimate the list has about 1,850 painters, so removing painters is not a priority yet (start pruning after 3,000? painters). This month, I have added dozens of notable painters who have WP articles or German-WP articles but were not on the list. Pre-judging notability is difficult (such as the painter of the recently purported painting of Jane Austen), so judge not too quickly. As of April 2007, I believe that WP art-articles are in their infancy, so keep adding everywhere. -Wikid77 13:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous list!

This list has far too many non-notable, self promoting, red links. Can they be deleted? Teapotgeorge 10:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-notables can be deleted. Some red links may merit articles, so they should be kept if that is the case. Be particularly careful over historic artists. Tyrenius 19:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Wolfgang Siemens

The entry "Wolfgang Siemens" was deleted twice. What about "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it."? What about the other "red links"? You Can find an articel about the painter on German-WK: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Siemens (I am not: Wolfgang Siemens himself, not a friend or his agent.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.254.134.239 (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It is preferable to list artists which have articles, so that their notability can be assured before they are added. We are not the German wikipedia. I'm sure a number of red links shouldn't be there. Why not translate the article on Siemens and put it on the English Wiki? You are advised to get a user name; otherwise it is difficult to communicate on your talk page. Tyrenius 18:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that we're not on the German Wiki - the URL should be an hint to indicate the relevance of Siemens' person and work. Sorry - but I'm not sure to be able to translate the german article on Siemens acceptably.--Netzgestalt 20:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Translation or use a machine translation. Tyrenius 00:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The German page looks like a stub, few references, somewhat nn, IMO why bother? Modernist 00:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Modernist! Much to my regret I have to realize that I'm guilty of disturbance. Yours respectfully --Netzgestalt 12:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Red Ink

I've restored the red ink primarily because several are well known artists and while there are no articles yet they are in many instances deserving and/or notable. I'v observed other lists in other languages with well known American artists in red ink awaiting translation into German, Italian, Spanish, and French etc...Modernist (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• But surely you understand why I deleted them: no articles, no links, so how well-known they are is yet to be determined. Instead of reverting, why not write up a couple of stubs? I mean, you're still not at 100,000 edits... Drmies (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Here's one: Herb Aach. You ready for a challenge, a stubby painter throwdown? Drmies (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I can work that :)...Modernist (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Mary Abbott (artist). Basuki Abdullah. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice work...Modernist (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. How about Ruth Abrams (artist)? 4-0! (So, artnet is OK to include as an external link? I wasn't sure.) Drmies (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Artnet and Askart are both OK...Modernist (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Spelling conventions

According to a series of edits like https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_painters_by_name_beginning_with_%22A%22&oldid=958377518 by @Bmcln1:, it was suggested that the lists by letter each follow U.S. spelling conventions. Is there a particular reason for this? Wouldn't "English-language" spelling conventions be more appropriate, to avoid WP:ENGVAR questions? TheFeds 01:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Most pages can be one or the other, but shouldn't be both. Subsequently changing from one to the other is discouraged.Bmcln1 (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)